State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Whitlock, 16-80-10716
Decision Date | 27 October 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 16-80-10716,16-80-10716 |
Citation | 59 Or.App. 303,650 P.2d 1042 |
Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent--Cross-Appellant, v. Katherine WHITLOCK, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dawn K. Keene, Appellant--Cross-Respondent. ; CA A21333. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John G. Cox, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant--cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Hutchinson, Harrell, Cox, Teising & Anderson, P. C., Eugene.
William G. Wheatley, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent--cross-appellant. On the briefs were John E. Jaqua and Jaqua & Wheatley, P. C., Eugene.
Before BUTTLER, P. J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.
Plaintiff State Farm (company) brought this declaratory judgment proceeding for a declaration that it was not liable under the uninsured motor vehicle provision of an automobile insurance policy issued to defendant's decedent. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The company's motion was denied; defendant's was allowed. Defendant appeals from the award of attorney fees, contending it was insufficient, 1 and the company cross-appeals from the judgment for defendant.
Decedent, Dawn Keene, was fatally injured while riding as a passenger in her own van. The van was negligently driven by John Scott. Scott had no automobile insurance in his own name but was insured as a "permissive user" under the bodily injury liability provision of decedent's policy. The liability provision of the policy contained a "family-household exclusion," excluding bodily injury liability coverage for any insured. 2 Decedent was the named insured under the policy and so could not recover under the liability provision.
The issue before us is whether the unavailability to Scott of liability coverage for decedent's injuries renders her van an "uninsured motor vehicle" under the provisions of her insurance policy. The company argues that, because decedent's van was insured under the liability coverage of the policy, it was not an "uninsured motor vehicle" under the uninsured motor vehicle provision. Therefore, it argues, decedent was not entitled to benefits under that provision. Defendant contends that decedent was entitled to the uninsured motor vehicle benefits, because the policy's exclusion of her injuries from liability coverage made the van an uninsured motor vehicle as to her.
Bowsher v. State Farm Fire Co., 244 Or. 549, 419 P.2d 606 (1966), presented facts substantially identical to those in this case. The Supreme Court held that, under former ORS 736.317(2), 3 the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy must be construed to cover the injuries received by the insured when no liability insurance coverage was available to him, because the only applicable insurance (insured's own) specifically excluded his claim. The court said:
* * * "244 Or. at 551-53, 419 P.2d 606.
In reaching its decision, the court held that a policy definition defining Bowsher's vehicle as an "insured automobile" did not avoid uninsured motorist coverage, because
" * * * [n]othing 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." 244 Or. at 552.
Defendant maintains that this court is bound by the holding in Bowsher. However, since Bowsher was decided, the legislature has repealed the statute which the Supreme Court construed in Bowsher and has spoken to the question addressed in the insurance policy in Bowsher that was not covered by former ORS 736.317. Unlike former ORS 736.317, the current statute now defines "uninsured motor vehicle" for the purposes of uninsured motorist coverage. See Lund v. Mission Ins. Co., 270 Or. 461, 465, 528 P.2d 78 (1974).
ORS 743.792(2)(d) provides:
Under ORS 743.792(2)(e):
It is now clear that, under ORS 743.792, unlike former ORS 736.317(2), the focus is on the vehicle involved in the accident, not the resulting injury and claim. We therefore conclude that the holding in Bowsher v. State Farm Fire Co., supra, is no longer controlling. 4 As the Supreme Court pointed in Lund v. Mission Ins. Co., supra:
"A plain reading of the statute shows that the protection afforded under ORS 743.792 is limited to certain risks, viz., where a tort-feasor does not have insurance meeting the requirements of ORS chapter 486 [ ], where the tort-feasor has such insurance but the carrier denies liability or becomes insolvent, or where neither insured nor insurer is able to determine the existence of a valid insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident.
"We conclude that the proper perspective intended by the legislature is that which directs our inquiry toward the tort-feasor 'at the time of the accident,' as provided in ORS 743.792(2)(d)(A), to determine whether the tort-feasor did or did not own 5 a policy of insurance which complied ed ed with the financial responsibility laws at the time of the accident. * * * " 270 Or. at 467, 582 P.2d 78.
ORS 743.792(2)(e) clearly authorizes an insurer to exclude from uninsured motorist coverage an insured who occupies a vehicle as to which the insured has procured liability insurance satisfying the financial responsibility law.
The remaining question is whether the company's policy provided coverage broader than that required by statute and whether, under the policy as written, decedent's van qualified as an uninsured vehicle. ORS 743.792. 6
The uninsured motor vehicle provision of the policy provided: "We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle." The policy defined an uninsured motor vehicle as: "a land motor vehicle * * * which is not insured or bonded for bodily injury liability at the time of the accident." It also provided:
As noted above, ORS 743.792(2)(e)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Locey By and Through Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho
...legislature amended its statute in the following year to expressly provide for such an exclusion, see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Whitlock, 59 Or.App. 303, 650 P.2d 1042 (1982), other states have followed the trail blazed by the Oregon The Supreme Courts of Illinois and Iowa each broa......
-
Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...UM coverage for bodily injuries, including Geoffery's death, arising out of the operation of that vehicle. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Whitlock, 59 Or.App. 303, 650 P.2d 1042 (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 460, 658 P.2d 1163 (1983) (where decedent passenger was subject to "family member" exclu......
-
Dowdy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 16-83-00596
...the Supreme Court answered that question affirmatively. However, we later reached the opposite conclusion in State Farm Mut. Ins. v. Whitlock, 59 Or.App. 303, 650 P.2d 1042 (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 461, 658 P.2d 1163 (1983). The facts there were materially identical to those in Bowsher, bu......
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Jones
...of Appeals concluded that the insured could not, relying upon an intervening change in statutory law. State Farm Mut. Ins. v. Whitlock, 59 Or.App. 303, 307-09, 650 P.2d 1042 (1982). Although the question was not presented, Whitlock apparently assumed that an exclusion of the insured from li......