(concurring). I concur because the injured employee, Russell Naasko, did not seek to recover against Corrosion Control because of acts or omissions of his employer, B & L Hotshot, Inc., the apparent owner of the insured vehicle, or for acts or omissions of another person while such other person was using the insured automobile.1 The injured employee sought rather to recover against Corrosion Control for acts or omissions of Corrosion Control not involving use of the vehicle.2 Corrosion Control was thus not an insured, and defendant Aetna Life & Casualty Company was not subject to liability under the policy.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Levin, J._Clause (d) of the no-fault automobile policy issued to Hotshot provided coverage as an insured to "any other person” — such as Corrosion Control — “only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an Insured under (a), (b) or (c) above.”
The insured under (a) was Hotshot. An insured under (c) is "any other person while using an owned automobile . . . .”
The negligence alleged in the complaint against Corrosion Control was that it negligently instructed a fellow employee of the plaintiff where to place the pipes, it failed to remove the overhead power lines, it failed to provide a safe place to work, and it failed to move the pipes or equipment to a safe location.