Legal Opinion
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Gutman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided February 21, 2001No. 16-98-12462; CA A106916PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, J.
The issue in this case is whether plaintiff, Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, was obligated to defend its insureds, Donald and Virginia Gutman and their daughter, Fawn Carr, in an action brought against them that included a claim for false imprisonment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insureds, declaring that plaintiff owed them a duty of defense. We affirm.
In 1992, plaintiff issued two homeowner’s insurance policies to the Gutmans. Fawn and her children, Aaron and Heather, were living with the Gutmans when the second policy was issued. Because Fawn is related to the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Timberline Equipment Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Ledford v. GutoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Isenhart v. General Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Klamath Pacific Corp. v. Reliance InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. Westfield InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2005
- Home Indemnity Co. v. Stimson Lumber Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2001
- Schmidt v. Intel Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Willmar Development LLC v. Illinois National Insurance CoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. TMT Development Co., LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.