Opinion by
We are concerned here, with the,proper interpretation of an accident liability insurance policy with .regard to the extent, of its coverage,
Plaintiff, the insured, is the lessee of a large trаct of land on which there is laid out a golf course and which contains also a restaurant and dance floor, a recreation .hall, bowling alleys, a swimming pool, bathhouses, a/nd. other structures. The. pоlicy provides, for insurance against liability for accidents arising out of ‘.‘hazards” which are defined as “The ownership, maintenance or use, for the purposes stated in .the Declarations,.of the premises. and all operations during the policy .period which are necessary or incidental to such purposes,’,’- The Declarations state the location of the premises to be “Overlook Golf Course, B. D. #3, Lititz Pike, Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” and that the “Purposes of TJse”,are “Golf Course”, and the “Portion оf Premises insured” is “Entire”. An endorsement provides .that, the .premium is bas.ed on a rate of $.50 per- $100; of recеipts, and that “The term ‘receipts’, as used-herein shall mean the entire gross income .... received by the Insuredfrom .allundertakings operated by the Insured . . . at the location .specified, in ... the Declaratiоns”. Another endorsement provides that the coverage does not. apply to “swimming pools or bathing beaches”.,
*550 One Louise Lookabaugh paid a fee which entitled her to enter the swimming pool аnd also to the use of a locker in the women’s bathhouse located on the second floor of a structure adjacent to the pool; the first floor of this building was used as a storage room for toоls and equipment for the golf course. As Mrs. Lookabaugh was proceeding to her locker the floor collapsed and she fell to the bottom of the tool shed below, sustaining injuries, to recover damages for which she and her husband brought suit against plaintiff. Defendant insurance company refused to acknowledge liability under its policy, whereupon plaintiff settled the claim and then brought the present action against defendant for indemnity.
Plaintiff’s right to recover obviously depends on whether the policy covеrs liability for an accident sustained, not on the golf course, but in the bathhouse, and this question may be broken down into three subordinate ones: (1) Would the language of the policy have been sufficient to establish suсh liability if the clause excluding the swimming pool and bathing beaches had been omitted? (2) Did that clause enlаrge what would otherwise have been the scope of the coverage? (3) Did the exclusion clause release defendant from liability for accidents occurring not only in the swimming pool and beaches but also in the bathhouse?
As to the first of these questions, it is true that the “Location” of the “Premises” was stated to be “Overlook Golf Course” and “the Purposes of Use” were listed as “Golf Course”, but the term “Golf Course”, in bоth these connections, was apparently used not merely to designate the limited portion of grоund laid out for that sport but rather as descriptive of the leased premises generally, golf being the mаin but not the only activity carried on there. This interpretation derives strength from the fact that the premium is said to have been computed and collected on the basis of the gross income received from
all
the undertakings operated by the insured,
*551
which would indicate that such additional operations and structures as the restaurant, recreаtion hall and howling alleys were included in the coverage and that defendant’s liability was not limited to accidents occurring on the acreage constituting the golf course proper. It must, of course, be remembered that where the terms of a policy are susceptible of different interpretations the construction most favorable to the insured should be the one adopted:
Humphreys v. National Benefit
Association,
As to the second question, and even assuming that the
general
provisions of the policy do
not
establish defendant’s liability in this action, the clause excluding the swimming pool and bathing beaches clearly has that effect. This is because such exclusion shows the parties understood that, were it not for that clause, the coverage would have included the swimming pool and beaches, and, by the same token, all the other structures and operations on thе premises:
Koser, Administrator, v. American Casualty Co. of Reading,
As to the third question, it is argued by defendant that the bathhouse was operated only in connection with the swimming pool and as incidental to its use and therefore the exclusion of the pool should infеrentially carry *552 with it the exclusion of the bathhouse as well. The bathhouse, however, was a structure physiсally distinct from, and independent of, the pool, and, if defendant had intended to exclude it, it should have done so expressly, just as it excluded the pool and bathing beaches, or it should have clarified in some other manner the intended scope of the language it employed.
The court below was correct in directing that judgment be entered for plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.