Fleming v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N
Decision Date | 03 March 2000 |
Citation | 996 P.2d 501,330 Or. 62 |
Parties | Terry FLEMING, Respondent on Reconsideration, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner on Reconsideration. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Lisa E. Lear and S. Joel Wilson, of Bullivant Houser Bailey, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner on reconsideration.
No appearance contra.
James E. Horne, of Peery, Hiscock, Pierson, Kingman & Peabody, PS, Seattle, Washington, filed a brief for amicus curiae Insurance Environmental Litigation Association. John H. Holmes and William D. Okrent, of Holmes & Rickles, Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae National Association of Independent Insurers, Alliance of American Insurers, and American Insurance Association.
Philip Schradle, Christine A. Chute, and Kathleen Dahlin, Assistant Attorneys General, Salem, filed a brief for amicus curiae Department of Consumer and Business Services. With them on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Natalie L. Hocken, of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.
Thomas M. Christ, of Mitchell, Lang & Smith, and Thomas W. Brown, of Cosgrave, Vergeer & Kester LLP, Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company, Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Oregon Mutual Insurance Company, North Pacific Insurance Company, and Oregon Automobile Insurance Company.
Mark L. Zipse, of Cavanagh & Zipse, and Priscilla F. Slocum, of Early, Maslach, Price & Baukol, Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance Exchange.
Petitioner United Services Automobile Association (USAA), supported by several amici curiae, petitions for reconsideration of this court's decision in Fleming v. United Services Automobile Assn., 329 Or. 449, 988 P.2d 378 (1999). We allow the petition for reconsideration, modify our earlier decision, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
The issue in this case was whether plaintiff was entitled to insurance coverage for loss to his rental property that was caused by the clandestine operation of an illegal methamphetamine laboratory. Fleming, 329 Or. at 452, 988 P.2d 378. This court held that, because the title "PERILS INSURED AGAINST" in USAA's policy violated ORS 742.246(2), plaintiff was entitled to coverage for his loss. Id. at 459, 988 P.2d 378.2
USAA contends that this court erred by failing to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for that court to address assignments of error numbers six, seven, eight, and fourteen in USAA's brief to that court. In its brief on the merits to this court, USAA did not request that relief. The better practice is for a party to identify any issue that might require remand following this court's review. See Kentner v. Gulf Ins. Co., 298 Or. 69, 74, 689 P.2d 955 (1984)
(. ) Nonetheless, USAA is correct that our earlier decision did not dispose of those four assignments of error and that we should remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. See Relational Systems International v. Cable, 303 Or. 71, 72, 733 P.2d 1379 (1987) ( ).
USAA and amici raise a number of other arguments, most of which they make for the first time in their petitions for reconsideration. We decline to address the arguments that are made for the first time on reconsideration. See Kentner, 298 Or. at 73-74,
689 P.2d 955 ( ). However, several of the arguments that USAA and amici raise on reconsideration relate to this court's construction of ORS 742.246(2). We address those arguments. See Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997) ()
USAA and amici argue that, in construing and applying ORS 742.246(2), this court erroneously disregarded the fact that the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (Director) had approved USAA's policy form as complying with the Insurance Code. See ORS 742.003 ( ). They contend that, in light of the Director's statutory authority to approve or disapprove policy forms, courts no longer look to the statutes to determine whether a policy complies with 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)
().
USAA and amici also argue that the explanatory title requirements in ORS 742.246(2) apply only to "standard" fire insurance policy forms, not to multi-peril insurance policy forms such as the one that USAA issued to plaintiff. They contend that, in holding to the contrary, this court misapplied the statutory construction methodology summarized in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 610-12, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). Specifically, they argue that the court failed to consider ORS 742.246(1), which is the immediate statutory context of ORS 742.246(2). They also rely on ORS 742.202 and ORS 742.204, which, they contend, provide additional relevant context for construing the requirements in ORS 742.246(2). In their view, those statutes collectively compel the conclusion that the explanatory title requirements in ORS 742.246(2) do not apply to multi-peril insurance policy forms.
To facilitate our analysis of those arguments, we set out the relevant statutes.
ORS 742.202 provides:
"Except as provided in ORS 742.204, no fire insurer, its officers or agents, shall use any fire insurance policy or renew any fire insurance policy on property in this state unless it contains the provisions set forth in ORS 742.206 to [ORS] 742.242, which shall form a portion of the contract between the insurer and the insured."
(Emphasis added.)
ORS 742.204, provides:
(Emphasis added.)
ORS 742.246 provides:
USAA and amici argue that ORS 742.246(1) makes clear that ORS 742.246(2) applies only to standard fire insurance policy forms. They contend that the reference to "the policy" in ORS 742.246(2) is to the standard fire insurance policy that is issued by "[a] fire insurer" in ORS 742.246(1). USAA and amici then point out that the policy at issue in this case is not a standard fire insurance policy, but is, instead, a multiperil policy. Because it is not a standard fire insurance policy, they contend, the policy form is exempt from the requirements in ORS 742.246(2). USAA and amici are correct that ORS 742.246(1) permits a fire insurer to add to the provisions that are required by ORS 742.202 "other conditions, provisions, and agreements * * * " that are not in conflict with law or that are not contrary to public policy. However, they apparently draw from that statutory authorization the conclusion that, if an insurer offers a policy that provides coverage for loss from fire and also contains provisions that provide for coverage for loss from other perils, then that insurer no longer is a fire insurer and, therefore, no longer is subject to the requirements in ORS 742.246(2). We disagree. ORS 742.246(1) permits a fire insurer to add provisions to its policy. ORS 742.246(2) requires "[a]ny provision" in the policy to comply with the title requirements specified in that subsection. Nothing in ORS 742.246(1) suggests that a fire insurer may avoid the explanatory title requirements in ORS 742.246(2) simply by including provisions in addition to those that are required to be in a standard fire insurance policy.
In this case, USAA's policy provides that "any * * * loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered." Loss from fire is not excluded or excepted. That USAA insures losses to property from sources other than fire does not mean that it is not also a fire insurer. We reject the argument that ORS 742.246(1) establishes that a multi-peril insurance policy that provides coverage for losses from sources in addition to loss from fire is exempt from the explanatory title requirements in ORS...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State
...Automobile Assn., 329 Or. 449, 456, 988 P.2d 378 (1999) (in context, "any" synonymous with "every"), modified on recons., 330 Or. 62, 996 P.2d 501 (2000). ORS 377.773, therefore, applies to outdoor advertising signs of all species, including those that do not comply with the Plaintiff's arg......
-
Rowe ex rel. Rowe v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.
...form by the DOI is not determinative of whether policy language complies with applicable statutes. See Fleming v. United Services Auto. Assn., 330 Or. 62, 996 P.2d 501, 504 (2000). Questions of policy interpretation are for the court to decide. Benevides v. Arizona Property & Cas. Ins. Guar......
-
Summit Real Estate Mgmt., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
...the changes).The limitation in subsection (3) of the statute was enacted in 2001, directly in response to Fleming v. United Services Automobile Assn. , 330 Or. 62, 996 P.2d 501 (2000). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the "sufficiently explanatory title" requirement in ORS 742.246(......
-
ROBBEN & SONS HEATING v. MID-CENTURY INS.
...letters). See also Fleming v. United Services Automobile Assn., 329 Or. 449, 459-60, 988 P.2d 378 (1999), adh'd to on recons., 330 Or. 62, 996 P.2d 501 (2000) (holding that provisions restricting the rights of an insured that are not preceded by such a title will be ignored in construing th......
-
Chapter 3
...P.2d 1219 (Okla. 1998); Baldridge v. Kirkpatrick, 63 P.3d 568 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). Oregon: Fleming v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 996 P.2d 501 (Or. 2000); Rhiner v. Red Shield Insurance Co., 228 Or. App. 588, 208 P.3d 1043 (2009). Pennsylvania: Central Dauphin School District v. Am......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...P.2d 1219 (Okla. 1998); Baldridge v. Kirkpatrick, 63 P.3d 568 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). Oregon: Fleming v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 996 P.2d 501 (Or. 2000); Rhiner v. Red Shield Insurance Co., 228 Or. App. 588, 208 P.3d 1043 (2009). Pennsylvania: Central Dauphin School District v. Am......