Ottumwa Housing Authority v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because all theories of recovery were based on conduct occurring at workplace, all damages barred by exclusion
• Lolding that \arising out of and in the course of employment\ had the same meaning in insurance contract that it had in workers' compensation law
• holding employee’s claims barred by employee exclusion clause because all employee’s theories based on conduct allegedly occurring at workplace during employment and resulting in injuries and damages
• \We think this same meaning [from workers' compensation cases] was intended to apply to the language 'arising out of and in the course of employment' in the employee exclusion clause.\
• “We think this same meaning was intended to apply to the language ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ in the employee exclusion clause [as the workers’ compensation statute.]”
• “[an] employer’s immunity is the quid pro quo by which the employer gives up his normal defenses and assumes automatic liability, while the employee gives up his right to common law verdicts.” (quoting Suckow v. NEOWA FS, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 776, 779 (Iowa 1989))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).