Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Spearman v. Progressive Classic Insurance

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 27, 2016No. 130201718; A155674Published

1ConcurrenceDevore, J.

Although reticent to say it quite so plainly, the majority holds that, in an uninsured motorist claim, an insurer may dispute, as a factual matter, that a claimant suffered any damages and the insurer will not be deemed thereby to have exceeded the scope of the exemption from the claimant’s attorney fees under ORS 742.061(3). That is because the cause or extent of damages is a permissible dispute within the scope of the fee exemption. Plaintiff argues for something more novel. Hoping to extend the Supreme *129Court’s decision in Grisby v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 343 Or 175, 166 P3d 519,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Vega v. Farmers InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Oakridge Community Ambulance Service, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977

8 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