Legal Opinion

Shadbolt v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1976PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTongue, J.

This is an action at law in which plaintiff seeks to recover upon a policy of automobile insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff. The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury. The trial court found that the terms of the insurance policy were ambiguous and, for that reason, "afford[ed] coverage for the accident.” Defendant appeals from the resulting adverse judgment. We affirm.

Under the terms of the insurance policy, defendant agreed "to pay all damages” for bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the described automobile or a non-owned automobile *…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. May v. Chicago Insurance CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Allen v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1946
  3. George B. Wallace Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Bailey v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Musulin v. Woodtek, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Moss v. Mid-American Fire & Marine InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Totten v. New York Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Pacific First Bank v. New Morgan Park Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1980

53 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