General American Life Insurance v. Barth

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I agree with the majority that under the rationale of the cases cited, appellee was clearly “in the course of’ his employment when he was injured. As appellee points out, however, the cases cited by appellant were all Workers’ Compensation cases, and the remedial purpose underlying Workers’ Compensation would necessarily color the court’s construction of the “in the course of’ language in which those particular statutes are couched. However, appellee cites other cases that involve language closely similar to that in Barth’s insurance policy…