Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pohl
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided January 21, 1970PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.
The extent of an insurer’s right to subrogation for medical payments is the issue.
The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, issued a policy of automobile insurance to Orval and Della Badger. Mrs. Badger was injured when the car in which she was riding was hit by a truck which was being negligently operated by its owners, defendants Pohl. She incurred medical expenses which the plaintiff paid pursuant to its medical payment coverage. The plaintiff notified the Pohls of the payments and its subrogation rights and requested reimbursement. The Pohls subsequently made a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Silinsky v. State-Wide InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Davenport v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1965
- In RE BEHM'S ESTATE. BEHM v. GeeUtah Supreme Court · 1950
- Employers Casualty Co. v. MooreArizona Supreme Court · 1943
- Geertz v. State Farm Fire and CasualtyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Investment Service Co. v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
- Peterson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of IllinoisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- First National Bank v. Jack Mathis General Contractor, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.