With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (ii) to any obligation of the insured to indemnify or contribute with another because of damages arising out of the bodily injury[.] Id. at 378 (emphasis added). I. Neither the bodily injury provision nor the amendatory endorsement is ambiguous. To determine whether the damages that East Central paid to the Creek County Well Service employees arose out of a bodily injury as defined by the CGL Policy, and if so, whether East Central’s claim against Creek County Well Service is one for indemnification or contribution for such damages and therefore is excluded from coverage, we must fi erage for indemnification claims against the insured arising out of bodily injuries excludes coverage for East Central’s claim against Creek County Well Service. Cf. Pearson Servs., Inc., 937 F.2d at 403-04 (<HOLDING>). If we were instead to accept East Central’s

A: holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury
B: holding that the policys exclusion of coverage for any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of such bodily injury operates where the genesis of the action is an employees workrelated bodily injury quoting national union fire ins co 906 f2d at 200
C: holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended
D: holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured
B.