Gaucin v. Farmers Insurance
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, P. J.
In this case, we are called on to decide whether plaintiff must reimburse defendant, his insurer, for the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits that defendant paid to plaintiff, to the extent that plaintiff also received other benefits that, in total, exceeded his economic damages. The trial court ruled that defendant was entitled to reimbursement by virtue of ORS 742.544. Plaintiff argues that ORS 742.544 does not confer on insurers an entitlement to reimbursement of PIP benefits; rather, according to plaintiff, the statute limits only the amount of reimbursement that might be available…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. StamperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- North Pacific Insurance v. HamiltonOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. StamperOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- Bergmann v. HuttonOregon Supreme Court · 2004
- Babb v. Mid-Century InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Strawn v. Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- Farmers Insurance v. ConnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. HaleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
- Randall v. ValkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
- Providence Health Plan v. WinchesterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.