Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc.

Decision Date20 March 1997
Citation325 Or. 55,934 P.2d 382
PartiesLinda BIRD, Petitioner on Review, v. NORPAC FOODS, INC., an Oregon cooperative, dba Stayton Canning Company, Respondent on Review, and Donald Gale Moreland, an individual, Defendant. OREGON INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, an association, and Norpac Foods, Inc., dba Stayton Canning Company, a cooperative, and Donald Moreland, Respondents on Review, v. Linda BIRD, Petitioner on Review, and American Motorists Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, and Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, an Oregon Corporation, Defendants. CC 850500C; C900682CV; CA A65075 (Control), CA A68732; SC S42113.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

John E. Uffelman, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review.

John L. Langslet, of Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman, Portland argued the cause for respondents on review.With him on the brief was Julie K. Bolt.

Before CARSON, C.J., and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY, GRABER and DURHAM, JJ.*

VAN HOOMISSEN, Justice.

The dispositive issue presented in these two consolidated appeals, under the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association(OIGA)statutes, ORS 734.510 et seq., is as follows: When OIGA has assumed all of the rights, duties, and obligations of an insolvent insurer pursuant to ORS 734.570, and a plaintiff obtains a personal injury judgment against a defendant insured by that insolvent insurer, must the judgment be deemed satisfied to the extent that the plaintiff has received workers' compensation benefits from a solvent insurer for the same injury?The Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative.Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 132 Or.App. 349, 888 P.2d 118(1995).For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We take the undisputed facts from the Court of Appeals' opinion.Plaintiff Bird was injured in the course of her employment when the car that she was driving collided with a car driven by Moreland, who was in the course of his employment with Norpac Foods, Inc.(Norpac), at the time of the accident.Bird filed a workers' compensation claim based on her injuries and collected $84,607.84 in benefits from her employer's workers' compensation insurer, American Motorists Insurance Company(AMIC).She also filed an uninsured motorist (UM) claim against her own motor vehicle insurer, Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon (Farmers), and collected $5,664.49 on that claim.1

Bird later filed a personal injury claim against Norpac and Moreland.At the time of the accident, Norpac (and Moreland as its agent) was insured by Mission Insurance Company(Mission).Mission later was declared insolvent, and OIGA assumed Mission's rights, duties, and obligations vis-a-vis Norpac and Moreland, including the defense of Bird's action.ORS 734.570.2A jury awarded Bird damages of $104,742.26, including $94,742.26 in economic damages and $10,000 in non-economic damages, and the trial court entered judgment against Norpac and Moreland, jointly and severally, in that amount.3

After the judgment was final, at OIGA's instigation, Norpac and Moreland filed a motion for an order directing satisfaction of the judgment.They argued that, because OIGA had assumed the obligations of Mission and ultimately was responsible for paying Bird's judgment against them, pursuant to ORS 734.640, 4 the judgment must be deemed satisfied to the extent of her workers' compensation and UM recoveries.Bird opposed the motion, arguing, among other things, that her workers' compensation claim was neither a "claim under an insurance policy" nor a "covered claim" within the meaning of ORS 734.640(1).She further argued that Norpac and Moreland's post-judgment motion for satisfaction was untimely.The trial court denied the motion.Norpac, but not Moreland, appealed.That appeal (CA A65075) is the first of the two appeals consolidated here.With respect to Norpac's appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed.Bird, 132 Or.App. at 359, 888 P.2d 118.We allowed Bird's petition for review in that case.

While Norpac's appeal in CA A65075 was pending, OIGA, Norpac, and Moreland filed a complaint against Bird, AMIC, and Farmers, seeking a declaratory judgment that OIGA, Norpac, and Moreland had no duty to pay Bird's judgment in CA A65075 because of the offset provision in ORS 734.640.Bird moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that another action involving the same claim--namely, Norpac's appeal--was pending, and that the present action was barred under principles of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.Bird also moved for summary judgment.OIGA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.The trial court denied Bird's motions and granted summary judgment in favor of OIGA, Norpac, and Moreland, ruling that Bird's recoveries from AMIC and Farmers must be applied to reduce the judgment against Norpac and Moreland.Bird appealed that judgment.That appeal (CA A68732) is the second of the appeals consolidated here.The Court of Appeals affirmed the declaratory judgment in favor of OIGA, Norpac, and Moreland.Bird, 132 Or.App. at 360, 888 P.2d 118.We allowed Bird's petition for review.

This case requires us to interpret the OIGA statutes, ORS 734.510 et seq., particularly ORS 734.640(1).In interpreting a statute, this court's role is to discern the intent of the legislature.ORS 174.020;PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 610, 859 P.2d 1143(1993).To do that, the court first examines both the text and context of the statute.In that first level of analysis, the text of the statutory provision itself is the best evidence of the legislature's intent and provides the starting point for interpretation.Ibid.As part of the text, the court considers its prior cases interpreting the statute.SeeStephens v. Bohlman, 314 Or. 344, 350 n. 6, 838 P.2d 600(1992)(when this court interprets a statute, that interpretation becomes a part of the statute as if written into it at the time of its enactment).Also at the first level of analysis, the court considers the context of the statute at issue, which includes other provisions of the same statute and other related statutes.If the legislature's intent is clear from the above-described inquiry, further inquiry is unnecessary.Id. at 611, 859 P.2d 1143.

The text of ORS 734.640(1) does not clearly reveal whether it applies to a workers' compensation recovery.Neither does it indicate whether a claim for workers' compensation benefits is a "claim under an insurance policy" under ORS 734.640(1).

This court had occasion in Carrier v. Hicks, 316 Or. 341, 851 P.2d 581(1993), to interpret the OIGA statutes generally and ORS 734.640 in particular in the context of an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) recovery.The plaintiff in Carrier brought a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident.The defendants' insurer became insolvent, and OIGA stepped in to defend the claim.The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that the plaintiff had not exhausted the UM/UIM remedies of his own automobile insurance as required by ORS 734.640(1) and that the damages award he had received under the UM/UIM policy constituted a full recovery.

In interpreting the OIGA statutes, including ORS 734.640, the Carrier court stated that the legislature's central purpose was to create a guarantee association of insurers to accumulate and administer funds to pay for the defense of insureds whose insurer becomes insolvent and to pay claims of injured claimants whose claims would have been within the coverage of the insolvent insurer's policy.Id. at 345, 851 P.2d 581.5However, this court also noted that OIGA's protections have significant restrictions.Id. at 348, 851 P.2d 581.Important in the total OIGA scheme is that OIGA funds, generated by Oregon income tax credits, not be accessible until all other available insurance sources have been used up.Ibid.The aim and effect of the OIGA statutes is to make OIGA "the carrier of last resort."Id. at 347, 851 P.2d 581.Claimants must exhaust their remedies against all other insurers before they can claim OIGA funds.Id. at 351, 851 P.2d 581.Whether the OIGA statutes in general, and ORS 734.640 in particular, require an offset against a personal injury judgment by the amount of a workers' compensation recovery was not specifically addressed or answered in Carrier.6

Bird's first argument is anchored in Carrier's holding that a claimant must not merely file or recover on a UM/UIM claim, but also must "exhaust" the limits of the UM/UIM policy, before the claimant can assert a claim against OIGA or its insured.Id. at 350, 851 P.2d 581.7From that holding, she posits that a claim against an insurance policy of a solvent insurer must be against a policy that has "monetary or durational" limits.She asserts that, because workers' compensation insurance has neither monetary nor durational limits, it cannot be "exhausted" and, therefore, it cannot meet the requirements expressed in Carrier.Bird's argument is unpersuasive.

Carrier must be read within the context of the relationship between the OIGA statutes and the UM/UIM statutes.The Carrier court stated that the UM/UIM statutes were designed to allow a claimant injured by the negligence of an uninsured motorist to recover the same amount that the claimant would have been legally entitled to receive in a civil action for damages, had the negligent motorist been insured.Id. at 349, 851 P.2d 581.The court further noted that the OIGA statutes denied UM/UIM insurers the right to bring subrogation claims against the insured of the insolvent insurer or against OIGA, thus indicating that OIGA funds should "not be accessible or used until all other available insurance sources of payment have been used up."Id. at 348, 851 P.2d 581.The court concluded that, taken together, the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • N.H. Ins. Guaranty Ass'n v. Pitco Frialator, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1998
    ...to the first sentence of RSA 404–B:12, I. See Ventulett, 583 A.2d at 1024; Mosier, 890 P.2d at 879–80; Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 325 Or. 55, 934 P.2d 382, 387 (1997). But see Alabama Ins. Guar. v. Magic City Trucking, 547 So.2d 849, 853 (Ala.1989). These courts essentially reason, and we ......
  • Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 4 Abril 2019
    ...not apply to a cause of action for negligence such as that brought by plaintiff against defendant here. Cf. Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc. , 325 Or. 55, 64, 934 P.2d 382 (1997) (concluding that "claim," as used in an Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association statute, had been used broadly to "refer......
  • Leitch v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 2010
    ...Guar. Assoc. v. Menor, 166 P.3d 205 (Colo.App.2007); Robinson v. Gailno, 275 Conn. 290, 880 A.2d 127 (Conn.2005); Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc. 325 Or. 55, 934 P.2d 382 (Or. 1997); Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Rest., Inc. 699 A.2d 348 (D.C.1997); Pinkham v. Morrill, 622 A.2d 90 (Me. 1993); Burke v. V......
  • Wade v. Mahler
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 17 Mayo 2000
    ...was liable under the judgment may defendant request the court to reduce plaintiff's judgment. See also Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 325 Or. 55, 67, 69-70, 934 P.2d 382(1997) (legislature may alter the collateral source rule, and ORS 18.510 provides a means for obtaining an offset for collate......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT