Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCarson, C. J.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether an insurance policy that defendant issued provides coverage for a claim of housing discrimination made by a prospective tenant against the insured plaintiffs. After a trial on stipulated facts, the trial court entered judgment for defendant, concluding that the terms of the policy did not cover the prospective tenant’s claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 923 P2d 1280 (1996). That court, however, did not base its decision upon the wording of the policy. Instead,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Totten v. New York Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- A-1 Sandblasting & Steamcleaning Co. v. BaidenOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomlinson-Arkwright Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943
- McGrath v. Electrical Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Northland Casualty Co. v. HBE Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2001
- Holloway v. Republic Indem. Co. of AmericaOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2004
- Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Insurance CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- Marleau v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 2001
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.