With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". & Van Der Maaten, 630 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Iowa 2001) (also citing these four grounds for common-law indemnity, and agreeing that the first three are based on a relationship existing between the indemnitor and the indemni-tee, while the fourth is “based solely upon a common liability arising from the concurrent negligence of the parties”); Farmers Coop. Co. v. Stockdales’ Corp., 366 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1985) (same); Hysell v. Iowa Pub. Serv. Co., 534 F.2d 775, 782-83 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Abild Constr. Co.). Another distinction between the claims is that a contribution claim by a third-party against the employer of the injured person is entirely barred by the “exclusive remedy” provision of the IWCA, currently codified at Iowa Code § 85.20. See Abild Constr. Co., 144 N.W.2d at 306 (<HOLDING>); accord Thompson v. Steams Chem. Corp., 345

A: holding that a contractor had no duty of care to a third party under a premises liability theory because the contractor was not a landowner or occupier but expressing no opinion as to whether the contractor owed a duty to the third party under general negligence principles because the third partys legal theory was restricted to premises liability
B: holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer
C: holding that an insurer which insures a tortfeasor under a liability policy has no obligation of good faith and fair dealing to an injured third party even where the injured third party also carries a separate policy with the insurer
D: holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer
B.