State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Sevier
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentO’Connell, C. J.
The majority holds that an injured third party may recover on a policy of insurance even though the insured would not be allowed to enforce the policy. In so doing, it introduces much confusion into the law of agency and, although purporting to avoid the question, effectively adopts the reasoning and effect of Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 71 Cal2d 659, 79 Cal Rptr 106, 456 P2d 674 1969), which rejects the fundamental principles of the law of contract. The opinion of the majority is not supported either by logic or any of our prior cases on the subject. I dissent.
*301The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Imperiali v. PicaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Bailey v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
- Allegretto v. Oregon Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.