【正文】 pensation acts typically do not include domestic servants, farm laborers。 97 (1979 amp。 Howell v. Travelers Indem. Co., 237 . 227, 74 610 (1953). n3 . GEN. STAT. 167。 Casualty Co., 283 . 87, 194 834(1973)(purpose of the Act is to pensate innocent victims of financially irresponsible motorists)。 167。 Compensation amp。s first financial responsibility act in 1931 that such costspreading is a more equitable result than leaving the victims of highway negligence without pensation. Legal Topics: For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics: Labor amp。 pensation ultimately means that the cost of pensating employees such as Smith will be borne by all the state39。s financial responsibility law than a clause excluding coverage for employees or members of the general public. In conclusion, the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Smith demonstrated its mitment to expansive interpretation of the state39。s financial responsibility law requires invalidation of a policy clause excluding coverage for injuries to members of the insured39。 pensation will be read as if it excluded only employees covered by workers39。 pensation benefits are available is valid and Page 7 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * enforceable. n106 thus, the employer does not have to pay for double coverage of his employees, a point often overlooked in the opinions upholding employee exclusion clauses. Finally, the court39。s automobile liability policy cover injury to employees who also are covered by workers39。s pulsory insurance laws codify a policy of concern for the plight of accident victims, a concern that should send a message to the state39。 pensation. The Smith holding also finds support in the public policy behind the state39。s Compensation law nor liability on account of bodily injury to or death of the insured while engaged in the employment, other than domestic, of the insured. . . . n101 While there is no legislative history on the amendment, the deletion of the italicized part of the section n102 shows an intent to avoid the possibility that a policy qualifying under the statute would exclude coverage of an employee engaged in his employer39。s brief indicated that he was not. n97 The decision also is consistent with the wording of North Carolina39。 the court noted that the record contained no evidence whether Smith was covered by workers39。 pensation or his employer39。 pensation. n93 The court wrote that [t]here is a significant difference between excluding coverage for injuries to a person for whom another remedy has been provided, and an attempt to exclude certain persons as insureds under the policy. n94 With its decision in Smith, the North Carolina Court of Appeals aligned itself with the courts that will not enforce an employee exclusion clause unless workers39。s financial responsibility law. n89 The court cited the Indiana Financial Responsibility Law39。s insurance pany alleged that the policy provided for no liability to any employee of the insured while engaged in the business of the Assured . . . or to any person to whom the Assured may be held liable under any Workmen39。s decedent was killed while operating a vehicle in the course of his employment. Decedent39。 pensation, and that this result is pelled by the state39。s coverage all employees, other than domestic, whether or not of a catebory ing under workmen39。s pensation law, or 2) other employment by the insured. n82 The court again did not discuss the financial responsibility law, resting its decision solely on construction of the exclusion clause: The [exclusion] clause under discussion makes specific reference to workmen39。s policy excluding bodily injury to or sickness, disease or death of any employee of the Insured while engaged in the employment . . . of the Indured. n77 The majority found this clause to be unambiguous and held that [t]here are obvious reasons for differentiating between the public as a class and one39。 pensation. n74 In some of these cases, the court simply decided the issue without mention of the state39。s vehicles. In this situation, courts have been called upon to decide whether enforcement of the employee exclusion clause violates the spirit, if not also the letter, of the state39。 pensation system and the employer39。 pensation does not apply to employers with fewer than a certain minimum number of employees, or to farm or domestic laborers. n72 If an employee is not covered by the state39。 pensation and their employer39。s financial responsibility law. The challenged clause in Smith is known in the insurance industry as an employee exclusion clause and typically provides that an insurer shall not be liable for injury to or death of employees of the insured who are injured while engaged in the business of the insured. n68 The reasoning behind such an exclusion is to permit an employer to avoid the expense of covering his employees under both the mandatory workers39。s right to recover should depend upon whether the conduct of its insured was intentional or negligent. In order to acplish the objective of the law, the perspective here must be that of the victim and not that of the aggressor. . . . [The victim39。 conduct was intentional. The insurance policy had a clause stating that it covered all sums which Insured shall bee legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease . . . sustained by any person, Page 5 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile. n61 The policy also provided that [a]ssault and battery shall be deemed an accident unless mitted by or at the direction of the insured. n62 The court noted that such an exclusion was mon in the insurance industry and would be valid if the insured had procured the policy voluntarily. n63 Roberts, however, had purch