Legal Opinion

Tropf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 22, 1997No. 95-582PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TERNUS, Justice.

The issue presented by this ease is whether a claimant must be in actual physical contact with the insured vehicle in order to be “occupying” the vehicle within the meaning of a policy defining “occupying” as “in, on, getting into or out of, and in physical contact with” the insured vehicle. We conclude physical contact with the vehicle is a prerequisite to coverage under this definition. Therefore, we vacate a court of appeals decision stating a contrary conclusion and affirm the district court judgment correctly interpreting the policy.

I. Robert Tropf, Jr., appellant, was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  2. Henderson v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
  3. Kalell v. Mutual Fire & Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1991
  4. Robson v. Lightning Rod Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Kibbee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. GoudeauTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Lee v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  3. Continental Insurance Co. v. BonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
  4. Simpson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1997
  5. Bratton v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2015

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API