McHorse v. Portland General Electric Company
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1946
- Brewer v. Allstate Insurance CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State Highway Commission v. Heintz Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
- A. H. Barbour & Son, Inc. v. State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Elliott Contracting Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1918