Shaffer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1993
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Parties: Paul SHAFFER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent. 9007-04437; CA A72066.

Page 245

852 P.2d 245

120 Or.App. 70

Paul SHAFFER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent.

9007-04437; CA A72066.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 19, 1993.

Decided May 12, 1993.

Robert E. L. Bonaparte, Portland, argued the cause, for appellant. With him on the briefs were Michael J. Gentry and Tooze Shenker Holloway & Duden, Portland.

Lisa E. Lear, Portland, argued the cause, for respondent. With her on the brief were Jeremy E. Zuck and Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, Portland.

Before ROSSMAN, P.J., and DE MUNIZ and LEESON, JJ.

ROSSMAN, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover on an insurance policy issued by defendant for damage to his rental home caused by his tenant's use of the home as a methamphetamine laboratory. After a jury verdict for plaintiff, the trial court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict on the ground that the damage was excluded from policy coverage as a "contamination."

The policy exclusion is substantively the same as the one we considered in Largent v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 116 Or.App. 595, 842 P.2d 445 (1992). There, we held that, as a matter of law, the exclusion does not apply to these circumstances, and that the damages claimed are covered by the policy. Accordingly, we conclude that the court erred as a matter of law in granting a directed verdict for defendant.

Defendant contends in a cross-assignment of error that, if we reverse, we should consider whether the court erred in refusing to submit defendant's special interrogatories to the jury concerning the nature of the damages to plaintiff's rental home. Defendant's rationale for the use of special interrogatories was stated in its trial memorandum:

"The primary issue is whether or not the exclusion of the insurance contract for 'contamination' applies to any claimed damages resulting from the claimed production of methamphetamine on the premises owned by the insured. State Farm submits that it is very possible that, at the conclusion of the evidence in this matter, there will be no question of fact regarding the actual process, or part of the process, that was being used in the home, or the products that are created or were present in the home as a result of the process involved. If that occurs, this Court will be asked to apply the undisputed facts to the policy in determining whether or not the contamination exclusion applies.

"Plaintiff has taken the...