Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California
Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
Citation | 300 Or. 564,715 P.2d 1112 |
Parties | UTAH HOME FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; and Georgia Andrews, Respondents on Review, v. COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, Petitioner on Review. A8202-00958, CA A26054, SC S30122. . * |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
John C. Mercer, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition were James M. Callahan and Landis, Aebi & Bailey, P.C., Portland.
Randall B. Kester, Portland, argued the cause for respondents on review. With him on the response was Cosgrave, Kester, Crowe, Gidley & Lagesen, Portland.
This is a claim for reimbursement for payments made for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits paid by Utah Home Fire Andrews was injured while riding as a passenger in her own vehicle. Barron, Colonial's insured, was driving Andrews' vehicle with her permission on October 24, 1980, when it collided with the vehicle of an uninsured motorist. Andrews was both the owner of and a passenger in the vehicle in which the injury occurred. Andrews' liability insurance was with Utah. Only the "face sheet" of her Utah policy and a specimen of the broad form named operator endorsement to that policy are included in the record. The driver of the vehicle, Barron, had a liability policy with Colonial, and that policy is in evidence. Barron's liability policy covers Barron's use of Andrews' vehicle as a temporary substitute vehicle. However, Barron's own vehicle, a 1968 Plymouth Fury, was the only vehicle listed in Barron's liability policy.
Insurance Company (Utah) to its insured, Andrews. The question is whether another insurance company, Colonial Insurance Company (Colonial), is responsible for the payment of PIP benefits to Andrews. The answer to that question depends upon whether the liability insurer of the driver of another's vehicle that is not described in the declaration section of the driver's policy must pay PIP benefits to the owner of the vehicle who was injured while a passenger in the vehicle. We answer both questions affirmatively in the circumstances of this case.
Utah paid PIP benefits to Andrews in the amount of $6,430.20. Utah and Andrews sued Colonial, alleging that the vehicle driven by Barron was "the insured vehicle" under Colonial's insurance policy, ORS 743.800, and that Andrews was entitled to PIP benefits from Colonial, pursuant to Colonial's insurance policy and Oregon law. They further alleged that Colonial refused to pay PIP benefits to Andrews and that, as a result thereof, Utah was required to provide PIP coverage under its policy with Andrews. 1 Utah has maintained throughout that its first position is that Colonial's PIP obligation is primary as to Andrews and that Utah's PIP coverage of Andrews is excess.
Each party moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment for Colonial. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 64 Or.App. 617, 669 P.2d 381 (1983). The Court of Appeals found that PIP benefits should be afforded Andrews pursuant to Colonial's policy with Barron as interpreted in light of the public policy behind the PIP statutes. The court then applied the rule of Lamb-Weston v. Oregon Auto Ins. Co., 219 Or. 110, 341 P.2d 110, 346 P.2d 643 (1959), and required the two insurance companies to prorate the loss "in the ratio which the limits of the policies bear to the total coverage." 219 Or. at 137, 346 P.2d at 647. Here, the applicable policy limits are those for PIP benefits. 64 Or.App. at 622-23, 669 P.2d 381. The Court of Appeals then reconsidered its opinion solely to correct the amount of money involved in its review. 65 Or.App. 812, 672 P.2d 71 (1983).
As stated, Utah's policy with Andrews is not included in the record, other than the "face sheet" and a specimen of the endorsement to which reference is made on the "face sheet," which indicate that the policy provides broad form named operator coverage for Andrews. Under that type of policy, the insured has coverage while she is driving any vehicle, regardless of ownership. The determination by the Court of Appeals that Utah was partially responsible for payment of PIP benefits to Andrews is not challenged in this review. For that reason, we do not reach that issue. We assume that Andrews is entitled to PIP benefits from Utah.
We first examine the Colonial policy, for only if Andrews is entitled to PIP benefits under the Colonial policy is it necessary to That is only the beginning of the analysis, however. Utah correctly points out that Oregon statutes require that every motor vehicle liability policy issued for delivery in this state must provide PIP benefits to four classes of persons. Colonial cannot provide fewer benefits than the law requires it to provide.
determine what policy, if either, is primary. The Colonial policy extends PIP benefits to the named insured and relatives of the named insured living in the named insured's household while occupying any motor vehicle. It extends PIP benefits to other passengers only while occupying a vehicle owned by the named insured. Andrews is not entitled to PIP coverage under the specific terms of Colonial's PIP benefits because she was not occupying a vehicle owned by Barron.
The term "the insured motor vehicle" is not defined in the PIP sections of law. In determining whether Colonial's policy must extend coverage to Andrews, we must determine what the legislature meant by the term "the insured motor vehicle."
The meaning of the term "the insured motor vehicle" is not readily apparent from ORS 743.800. The reference in the statute to "the insured vehicle," by necessary implication, means the vehicle insured under the liability policy. However, the legislature may have meant, as argued by Colonial, only the vehicle named on the declarations page of the particular liability policy. On the other hand, the legislature may have meant the vehicle insured by reference to the particular liability policy itself, and not just the vehicle listed on the declarations page.
We look again at ORS 743.800. It required that PIP benefits be provided to four classes of persons:
--"passengers injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle and
-- "pedestrians struck by the insured motor vehicle."
All four classes of persons are required to be insured under the PIP policy, in the sense that all are entitled to benefits.
As noted, PIP coverage is statutory. The coverage aspect of this legislation did not provoke much comment when it was proposed as HB 1300 in 1971. The general tenor of comments and submissions was that ORS 743.800 would mandate PIP coverage in all Oregon automobile liability policies. See, e.g., Presentation of HB 1300, Subcommittee on Financial Affairs, House State and Federal Affairs Committee, Exhibit C, 1971 (drafted by Cornelius Bateson, then Insurance Commissioner).
We turn to the basic framework of the statutory scheme involving motor vehicle liability insurance, including PIP, uninsured motorist and financial responsibility. PIP benefits are required to be included in "[e]very motor vehicle liability insurance policy issued for delivery in this state that covers any private passenger motor vehicle." ORS 743.800. Former ORS 486.011(11), repealed by Oregon Laws 1983, chapter 338, section 978, defined "motor vehicle liability insurance policy" to mean:
ORS 743.792(2)(b):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Or.
...from benefits). An insurer may provide greater PIP coverage that the statutes require, but not less. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Ins., 300 Or. 564, 568, 715 P.2d 1112 (1986) (insurance policy cannot provide fewer PIP benefits than the law requires it to provide); ORS 742.532 (policy......
-
West American Ins. Co. v. Hernandez
... ... HERNANDEZ and Daniela A. Hernandez, and Chase Home Finance, LLC, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants ... ") for losses incurred in a January 2007 arson fire to the insured property. All parties filed cross motions ... called Juul and informed them she had moved to California. Saepharn and the Juul agent discussed the fact that ... 2. Plaintiff relies on Utah Home Fire Insurance Co. v. Colonial Insurance Co. in ... ...
-
Fleming v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N
...the Insurance Code. This court previously has rejected that argument, and we continue to do so. See Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 300 Or. 564, 573 n. 6, 715 P.2d 1112 (1986) ("Approval by the Insurance Commissioner under ORS 743.006 [renumbered 742.003 in 1989] is no assuran......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Reilly
... ... a permissible substitute therefor." Viking Ins. Co. v. Perotti, 308 Or. 623, 628, 784 P.2d 1081 ... See State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Jones, 306 Or. 415, 418, 759 ... personal injury protection (PIP) law, see Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 300 Or ... ...