Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentRiggs, J.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant is not required to pay for a loss that plaintiffs are unable to recover from their insolvent underlying insurer. Defendant agreed to pay losses in excess of the “amount recoverable” under the underlying insurance. “Recoverable” means “that which is able to be, or capable of being, recovered.” Pacific Atlantic S.S. Co. v. United States, 120 F Supp 753, 755 (D Or 1954); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1898 (unabridged 1971). Under the plain, ordinary meaning of that phrase, defendant is required to pay the excess over the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Werner Industries, Inc. v. First State InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- Donald B. MacNeal, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1985
- Lechner v. ScharrerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1988
- Wurth v. Ideal Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.