Legal Opinion
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Rohde
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided November 1, 2000No. CV980500; CA A105771PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.
Plaintiff Mutual of Enumclaw (Enumclaw) initiated this declaratory judgment action to determine whether it has a duty to defend or indemnify defendants Todd and Kimberly Rohde (Rohdes) in a wrongfiil death action brought against them by Paul and Natalie Lapp (Lapps). The trial court entered summary judgment declaring that Enumclaw owes no duty to defend or indemnify. The Rohdes appeal, and we affirm.
The relevant facts are undisputed. The Rohdes live on a farm, which is owned by P. J. Rohde Ranch, Inc. A number of buildings are situated on the farm, including two detached houses, commonly…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Totten v. New York Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Allen v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- North Pacific Insurance v. American Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Laird v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- Employers-Shopmens Local 516 Pension Trust v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. McCormickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000