Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 2001No. CC 16-96-05691; CA A95110; SC S45288Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLeeson, J.

I agree with the majority that, under the family member/household exclusion in the umbrella policy, plaintiffs are not entitled to coverage. However, I disagree with the majority that plaintiffs are entitled to prevail under the automobile policy. The reason that plaintiffs prevail on their auto claim, the majority explains, is because the exclusion in their auto policy is as unintelligible as a similar family member/household exclusion in the policy at issue in North Pacific Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 332 Or 20, 22 P3d 739 (2001). The majority concludes that plaintiffs in this case are entitled…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. North Pacific Insurance v. HamiltonOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. Brokenshire v. Rivas and Rivas, Ltd.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API