Legal Opinion

Howard v. Oregon Mutual Insurance

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 2002No. 26858PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KIDWELL, Justice.

This is a dispute regarding the interpretation of uninsured/underinsured motorists provisions in an insurance policy issued by Oregon Mutual Insurance Company (Oregon Mutual) to Harold and Zola Howard (the Howards). The Howards brought an action against Oregon Mutual seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Oregon Mutual, finding that the policy’s uninsured/under-insured motorists offset provisions unambiguously precluded recovery by the Howards. We affirm.

I

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Perry v. Magic Valley Regional Medical CenterIdaho Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Foremost Insurance v. PutzierIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Bouten Construction Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Mutual of Enumclaw v. BoxIdaho Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Featherston Ex Rel. Featherston v. Allstate InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1994

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Weinstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Lovey v. Régence BlueShield of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Armstrong v. Farmers Ins. Co. of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
  4. McFarland v. Liberty Ins. Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 2019
  5. Purvis v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2005

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API