Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pierce v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 22, 1992No. 90-1515-L-1; CA A67513Published

1DissentWarren, P. J.

The majority concludes that an insurer must make the offer of UM coverage mandated by ORS 742.502(2) whenever the insurer covers a new risk. It then states that that event is determined by consulting the language of the policy. Because the legislature did not intend that insurers control when insureds are to be informed about the availability of UM coverage, and because the majority’s rule would not promote the purpose of the notice requirement, I dissent.

The purpose of the offer mandated by ORS 742.502(2) is to apprise an insured of the right to choose UM limits equivalent to the insured’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Blizzard v. State Farm Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Wood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API