Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McHorse v. Portland General Electric Company

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1974Published

1Concurrence

DENECEE, J.,

specially concurring.

I would affirm by reasoning which differs at least in terminology from that expressed by the majority.

The contract fixing the terms of the disability income plan was negotiated by the defendant company and a union. The contract provides: “The Company reserves the right to interpret and administer the plan, and such decisions shall be final.”

I believe the majority’s assumption that the decision that plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits is included within the phrase, “to interpret and *335administer the plan,” is correct. The question is, of what effect…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Brewer v. Allstate Insurance CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State Highway Commission v. Heintz Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
  4. A. H. Barbour & Son, Inc. v. State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Elliott Contracting Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API