Legal Opinion

Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 2017No. CC 1205-06486; CA A153170; SC S063079PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*64NAKAMOTO, J.

Auto insurers in Oregon must provide personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to their insureds for certain automotive injury-related expenses, regardless of who is at fault in an accident. ORS 742.520(1). The PIP medical benefits at issue in this case “consist of the following payments for the injury or death of each person” covered: “All reasonable and necessary expenses of medical, hospital, dental, surgical, ambulance and prosthetic services incurred within one year after the date of the person’s injury, but not more than $15,000 in the aggregate for all such expenses of the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Whipple v. HowserOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State v. Vasquez-RubioOregon Supreme Court · 1996

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Hunters Ridge Condominium Ass'n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. Spearman v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State v. SotoOregon Supreme Court · 2024
  4. Price v. LotlikarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Bialostosky v. CummingsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

12 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