Legal Opinion

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1998No. USDC Civil 94-6293-HO; SC S43426PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*297VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

This ease is before the court on certification of questions of Oregon law asked by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon pursuant to ORS 28.200 et seq. (1995).

We take the following facts from the district court’s order:

“Plaintiff was insured by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) at the time her son was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for her son’s medical treatment under the Personal Injury Payment (PIP) provisions of her insurance policy issued in Oregon by defendant State…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Molodyh v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Barackman v. AndersonOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Grisby v. Progressive Preferred InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Grisby v. Progressive Preferred InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Kramm v. Mid-Century InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  5. Garcia Hernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

6 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