Legal Opinion

Gill v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1992No. CC 89C12469; CA A65889; SC S38998PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

This is a claim for indemnity under ORS 30.285.1 Plaintiffs Gill and Davidson (plaintiffs) seek indemnity from defendants, the State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF) and its current and former directors, for attorney fees and costs that plaintiffs incurred in defending themselves in the case of SAIF v. Montgomery, which was filed in Marion County Circuit Court in 1984.2 The narrow issue presented on review is whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that proof of actual loss is required for indemnity under ORS 30.285(1). The broader issue presented, however, is whether the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stevenson v. State Ex Rel. Department of TransportationOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Frohnmayer v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Oregon Health Sciences UniversityOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State Ex Rel. State Accident Insurance Fund v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. Gill v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dixon v. HoldenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Peace River Seed Co-Operative, Ltd. v. Proseeds Marketing, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Welker Ex Rel. Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. Welker Ex Rel. Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  5. Welker Ex Rel. Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API