Legal Opinion
Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 17, 1996No. 9409-06390; CA A87451PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*361LANDAU, J.
The issue in this case is whether defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) is obligated to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to plaintiff, its insured, for injuries he suffered during a carjacking. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.
The relevant facts are undisputed. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 22, 1994, plaintiff left his place of employment. As he was walking toward his car, Henderson, a man he did not know, approached plaintiff and asked for a ride to Tigard. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. GuzekOregon Supreme Court · 1995
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Oakridge Community Ambulance Service, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Davidson v. Oregon Government Ethics CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ruggerio Ambulance Service, Inc. v. National Grange Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- White v. American Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
- American Home Assurance Co. v. First Specialty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
- Central Mutual Insurance v. Boston Telephone, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.