MacMillan v. John Deere Insurance
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentBrewer, J.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Financial Responsibility Law (FRL) requires John Deere to provide a defense to Trus Joist. In my view, the majority has given the wrong answer to that question. Trus Joist’s employees did, in fact, use Newton’s truck when they loaded and secured joists on it to be transported on the public highways. Therefore, the FRL required coverage for that use under John Deere’s policy.
To explain why, I begin with a step in the analysis that the majority omits, namely, whether loading and unloading constituted use of the truck under the policy. The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Travelers Insurance Co. v. American Fidelity & Cas. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1958
- Protective Insurance Co. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.