Legal Opinion

Providence Health Plan v. Winchester

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 12, 2012No. CV080258; A142272PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

In this civil case, plaintiff, Providence Health Plan (Providence) filed suit against defendant Winchester, its insured,1 alleging that defendant is required to reimburse Providence for amounts that Providence paid for defendant’s medical care after defendant was injured in a car accident while she was a pedestrian. Defendant received settlements under the driver’s liability insurance policy and under her own underinsured motorist (UIM) policy, and Providence asserts that, under its policy with defendant, defendant must reimburse it from those settlements for the money that it spent on…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Wilson v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Raynor v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  2. Hughes v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API