Legal Opinion

Austin Mutual Insurance v. McMannamy

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 24, 1996No. 94-10-06962; CA A89426PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

In this declaratory judgment action, defendant LaRose appeals from a summary judgment granted to plaintiff Austin Mutual Insurance Company (AMI). ORS 19.010(1), (2)(e). The trial court ruled that a default taken by AMI’s insured, McMannamy, precludes LaRose from litigating the effective date of McMannamy’s homeowner’s insurance coverage.1 We reverse and remand.

We view the facts in the manner most favorable to LaRose, the nonmoving party. ORCP 47 C; Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Or 337, 340, 918 P2d 755 (1996); Jones v. General Motors Corp., 139 Or App 244, 911 P2d 1243, rev allowed 323 Or 483…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wallulis v. DymowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Farmers Insurance v. StocktonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wetzel v. SandlowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API