Legal Opinion

Ryan v. Western Pacific Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1965PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

The issue is whether the negligent driver was a permissive user and thereby covered under the omnibus clause of the comprehensive liability policy issued by defendant.

The defendant’s policy named Tum-A-Lum Lumber Company and other business concerns and individuals as the named insureds. Paragraph III of the insuring agreement of the policy provides:

“DEFINITION OF ‘INSURED’: The unqualified word ‘insured’ wherever used includes not *86only the named insured but also * * * (3) any person while using an automobile owned or hired by the named insured or spouse and any person or organization legally…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
  2. Schuncke v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  4. In Re Vilas' EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1938

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Moore v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Jordan v. Consolidated Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. Columbia Casualty Co. v. HoohuliHawaii Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Travelers Indemnity Company v. WatkinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1968

10 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