Bowsher v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1966 |
| Citation | 244 Or. 549,419 P.2d 606 |
| Parties | Virgil E. BOWSHER, Respondent, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Otto R. Skopil, Jr., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Harry C. Coolidge and Williams, Skopil & Miller, Salem.
Arthur C. Johnson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Alexander A. Bernhard and Johnson, Johnson & Harrang, Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
This is a declaratory proceeding to determine whether an owner of an insured automobile who permits an uninsured person to drive his automobile and who is injured through the negligence 1 of such a driver may recover under the 'uninsured-automobile' coverage of his own liability insurance policy.
The relevant facts are stipulated. The plaintiff Bowsher had in force, with the defendant insurance company, a standard automobile liability policy in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oregon. Bowsher was a passenger in his own automobile, which was being driven by one Simpson, when Simpson collided with another automobile. Bowsher was injured.
Simpson had no insurance in force in his own name. The standard 'permissiveuser' clause of Bowsher's insurance policy made Bowsher's insurance available to Simpson as an 'insured.' But the bodily-injury liability insurance ('Coverage A') was not in force as to Bowsher because another clause in Bowsher's policy specifically excluded him (as the named insured) from such protection. 2 The policy did, however, contain the standard 'uninsured-automobile' clause prescribed by ORS 736.317(2). 3
The problem in this case arises out of the exclusions and definitions contained in Bowsher's insurance policy. One of the definitions specifically defines his described automobile as an insured automobile. 4 Since Bowsher was injured while riding in an 'insured' automobile, the company contends, he cannot claim coverage under a policy provision expressly written to protect him against injuries caused by operators of 'uninsured' automobiles.
Bowsher answers the company's contention as follows: As far as his injuries are concerned, because of the exclusions of his insurance policy his automobile was not an insured automobile, and the driver was not an insured operator, notwithstanding the fact that as to the rest of the world both the automobile and the driver may have been insured.
We hold that Bowsher and his injuries are the key to the problem. As far as Bowsher was concerned, Simpson was operating an 'uninsured motor vehicle' within the meaning of Bowsher's policy as the policy must be construed under ORS 736.317(2).
The trial court held that the legislative intent in requiring certain insurance policies to provide protection for policyholders injured by operators of 'uninsured motor vehicles' should be liberally construed to the end that persons injured by uninsured motorists be protected to the limits of such policies to the same extent that they would have been protected if the tort-feasors had carried insurance. We agree. See Peterson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 238 Or. 106, 393 P.2d 651 (1964).
There is no doubt that if Simpson had been driving some other automobile with Bowsher as his passenger, and had injured Bowsher in exactly the same manner as he injured him in his own automobile, any applicable 'uninsured-automobile' coverage paid for by Bowsher would have been available to Bowsher. Nothing in ORS 736.317(2) suggests an intent to treat an owner of an insurance policy differently when he is injured riding in his own automobile than when he is injured riding in another automobile.
Since the matter is not before us on the present record, we of course express no opinion upon the liability of Simpson to respond in damages to Bowsher. We hold only that the 'uninsured-automobile' coverage of Bowsher's policy, for whatever it may be worth, is available to Bowsher in this case.
We have been cited to no cases exactly like the one before us. We believe, however, that the proper focus of inquiry in such cases is to ascertain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locey By and Through Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 17000
... ... Relying on Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 663, 735 P.2d 974 ... Mid-America Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 103 Idaho 298, 647 P.2d 754 (1982) ... The seminal opinion in this area was Bowsher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 244 Or. 549, 419 ... Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 111 Idaho 98, 721 P.2d 198 (1986). We do not write ... ...
-
United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hanley
...exclusion clause. In each case the court construed the applicable uninsured motorist statute. 4 In Bowsher v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1966), 244 Or. 549, 419 P.2d 606, Bowsher, the named insured, was a passenger in his own automobile which was being driven by Simpson who had no insu......
-
Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...P.2d 1163 (1983), we held that the legislature, by enacting ORS 743.792(2)(e), had "legislatively overruled" Bowsher v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 244 Or. 549, 419 P.2d 606 (1966), which, as we summarized the holding, concluded that "the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy ......
-
First Nat. Ins. Co. of America v. Perala
...when faced with virtually identical facts. Barnes v. Powell, 49 Ill.2d 449, 275 N.E.2d 377 (1971); Bowsher v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 244 Or. 549, 419 P.2d 606 (1966). We agree with the court's reasoning in Bowsher, at 552-53, 419 P.2d There is no doubt that if (the uninsured motorist) ......