Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Or.
Decision Date | 19 May 2011 |
Docket Number | S057629).,(CC 9908–09080; CA A131605; SC S057520 (Control) |
Citation | 350 Or. 336,258 P.3d 1199 |
Parties | Mark STRAWN, on his own behalf and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review,v.FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, an Oregon stock insurance company; Mid–Century Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; and Truck Insurance Exchange, a foreign corporation, Respondents on Review/Petitioners on Review,andFarmers Insurance Group Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On review from the Court of Appeals.*Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review/respondent on review Strawn. With her on the briefs were Richard S. Yugler, David N. Goulder, and Lisa T. Hunt, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP, Portland.Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California, argued the cause for respondents on review/petitioners on review Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon et al. James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the brief for respondents on review/petitioners on review Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon et al. With him on the brief were P.K. Runkles–Pearson, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. and Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles; and David L. Yohai and Gregory Silbert, Weil Gotshal Manges LLP, New York.Meagan A. Flynn, Portland, filed briefs in support of the petition for review on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.Brian S. Campf, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
Andrew M. Schlesinger, West Linn, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae United Policyholders.Thomas M. Christ, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Association of Defense Counsel.Brian T. Hodges, Bellevue, Washington, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. With him on the brief were Deborah J. La Fetra and Timothy Sandefur, Sacramento, California.Before DE MUNIZ, Chief Justice, and DURHAM, KISTLER, BALMER, WALTERS, and LINDER, Justices.**LINDER, J.
Plaintiff Mark Strawn filed a class action against defendants Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid–Century Insurance Company, and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively, Farmers).1 The complaint alleged that Farmers had breached its contractual obligations and committed fraud by instituting a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced payments for reasonable medical benefits owed under its automobile insurance policies. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. Based on that verdict and a post-verdict class claims administration process, the trial court entered a judgment against Farmers for approximately $900,000 in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Farmers appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the punitive damages award exceeded federal constitutional limits, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 228 Or.App. 454, 209 P.3d 357 (2009).
Both parties petitioned for review. In its petition, Farmers presented three issues. The first two raise challenges to the liability verdict entered against Farmers. The third issue challenges the punitive damages award, arguing that the Court of Appeals should have reduced the punitive damages award further. In plaintiffs' petition, they first contend that the Court of Appeals should not have reached the constitutionality of the punitive damages award for procedural reasons. Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that the full amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury was within constitutional limits.
We allowed both petitions for review. As we will explain, we reject Farmers's arguments that seek to set aside the jury's liability determinations on plaintiffs' claims. On the punitive damages issues, we conclude that the Court of Appeals should not have reached Farmers's constitutional challenge to the amount of the punitive damages award. Consequently, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This case involves personal injury protection (PIP) benefits offered by insurance policies written by Farmers. Both by statute and by contract, Farmers was obligated to pay “[a]ll reasonable and necessary expenses of medical, hospital, dental, surgical, ambulance and prosthetic services incurred within one year after the date of the person's injury,” up to a certain limit. ORS 742.524(1)(a).2 Because the parties do not take issue with the summary of the facts provided by the Court of Appeals (which were set out in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as the prevailing party), we quote that summary here:
“Before 1998, Farmers processed requests for PIP benefits by having its claims adjusters review each medical bill to determine whether the bill was reasonable—that is, whether it was both ‘usual and customary.’ In 1997, however, Farmers decided to change that process. In an effort to recover losses and regenerate its surplus after the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake, Farmers instituted its ‘Bring Back a Billion’ campaign. Farmers' corporate headquarters in Los Angeles alerted its regional offices of the ‘increasing importance’ of generating money without raising premiums. In June 1997, Farmers instructed its Portland office to reduce payment of PIP benefits to realize ‘PIP dollar savings * * *[,] an untouched area.’
“ ‘RC40: This procedure was reduced because the charges exceeded an amount that would appear reasonable when the charges are compared to the charges of other providers within the same geographic area.’ 3
“The software was promoted as reducing medical provider payments by 26 percent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...addressed whether reliance can be proved on a class-wide basis in two cases: Newman, 287 Or. 47, 597 P.2d 800, and Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 350 Or. 336, 258 P.3d 1199,adh'd to on recons.,350 Or. 521, 256 P.3d 100 (2011), cert. den.,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1142, 181 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2012). ......
-
Bixby v. KBR, Inc.
...communicated to the third party, not whether there was an underlying statutory duty. See e.g., Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon, 350 Or. 336, 373–78, 258 P.3d 1199 (2011); Bartlett v. Crook County, Oregon, Civil No. 07–716–SU, 2009 WL 1176465, *4 (D.Or. April 28, 2009); Burns v. MBK Par......
-
State v. Guzek
...to preserve them. See ORAP 5.45(6) ("Each assignment of error shall be followed by the argument."); see also Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 350 Or. 336, 369 n. 23, 258 P.3d 1199, adh'd to on recons., 350 Or. 521, 256 P.3d 100 (2011) ("[A]dvancing such a new and different argument for the first......
-
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...having overstepped its role in reviewing the facts, then asked the wrong legal question. Looking to 358 Or. 131Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co.,350 Or. 336, 258 P.3d 1199 2011), the majority asked, as we had in Strawn,whether plaintiffs had produced evidence that, even though circumstantial, woul......