Tropf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
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
- C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- Henderson v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
- Kalell v. Mutual Fire & Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1991
- Robson v. Lightning Rod Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
- 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
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. GoudeauTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Lee v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2002
- Continental Insurance Co. v. BonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999
- Simpson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1997
- Bratton v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.