Legal Opinion
Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided January 7, 1998No. 16-96-05691; CA A95110PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s judgment entered pursuant to ORCP 66 in which the trial court resolved questions of insurance coverage in defendants’ favor. We affirm.
Plaintiffs are Robert and Shari Wright (the Wrights), two individuals, and James Strickland, the personal representative of the estate of the Wrights’ son, Geoffery. The Wrights are the named insureds on two insurance policies that are the subject of this litigation: an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (the “auto policy”) and an umbrella personal liability…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Totten v. New York Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Vega v. Farmers InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1996
- Winn v. GilroyOregon Supreme Court · 1984
- I-L Logging Co. v. Manufacturers & Wholesalers Indemnity ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- Heino v. HarperOregon Supreme Court · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- MERCURY INDEM. CO. OF ILLINOIS v. KimAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Fox v. Country Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- Surface v. American Spirit Insurance CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
- Roberts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.