Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hale
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided September 12, 2007No. 051083E3; A130967PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company initiated this action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that defendant, its insured who had been injured in an auto accident, was required pursuant to ORS 742.538 to reimburse plaintiff for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits after defendant received a settlement from another insurer. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and entered judgment to that effect. Defendant appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
The pertinent facts as found by the trial court are not in dispute. In August 2002, defendant was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Babb v. Mid-Century InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Gaucin v. Farmers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- Farmers Insurance v. American Fire & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mid-Century Insurance. v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- Powell v. System Transport Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2015
- Providence Health Plan v. CharriereDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2009
- Providence Health Plan v. WinchesterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Federated Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012