Legal Opinion

Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1997No. CC 9409-06390; CA A87451; SC S43296PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*99KULONGOSKI, J.

This declaratory judgment case presents two issues: (1) whether Oregon’s automobile personal injury protection (PIP) statutes, which provide coverage for injuries “resulting from the use, occupancy or maintenance of any motor vehicle,” ORS 742.520(2)(a), quoted below, 326 Or at 100, may extend to an injury inflicted by gunshot; and (2) if PIP coverage may be available, whether it applies to the circumstances of this case, in which plaintiff (the insured) was shot by an assailant during the course of a “caijacking,”1 when neither the assailant nor the plaintiff was inside the car…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Owens v. MaassOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Pierce v. Allstate InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DeHaanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. White v. American Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
  4. Kroeber v. GEICO Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2016
  5. American Home Assurance Co. v. First Specialty InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008

20 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