Legal Opinion

Fox v. Country Mutual Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1998No. CC 92CV1057, 93CV1076; CA A81951 A83125; SC S42097PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

These consolidated actions arise from an automobile collision that resulted in the death of William Fox (Fox). Plaintiff, who is the personal representative of Fox’s estate, asserts that defendants are obligated to pay benefits to the estate under the uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM) coverage in defendants’ automobile insurance policy. The Court of Appeals held that defendants had no such obligation, because the collision that killed Fox was not “caused by an accident” within the meaning of defendants’ policy. As a consequence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Ledford v. GutoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Vega v. Farmers InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Isenhart v. General Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Cole v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  3. ZRZ Realty Co. v. Beneficial Fire & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. Wright v. TurnerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Drake v. Mutual of Enumclaw InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

14 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