Legal Opinion

MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW INSURANCE CO. v. Key

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 26, 1994No. 93C11582; CA A82522PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment for plaintiff that declared the maximum amount of underinsured motorist benefits potentially available to defendants under a policy issued by plaintiff. We affirm.

Defendants, Veryl and Dale Key, were seriously injured in an automobile collision. The tortfeasor’s insurance policy had liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Defendants’ insurance policy, issued by plaintiff, provides uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist protection with a liability limit of $300,000 per accident, which is known as a “single-limit” policy.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Peterson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  3. American Economy Insurance v. CanamoreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  4. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. MaritzenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  5. Yokum v. Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Mutual of Enumclaw v. BoxIdaho Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. HaightCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  3. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. GurleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Fox v. Country Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  5. Grijalva v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

9 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