Woosley v. Transamerica Premier Ins. Co.

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DE MUNIZ
• Citation: Woosley v. Transamerica Premier Ins. Co., 826 P.2d 1054, 112 Or.App. 93 (Or. App. 1992)
• Decision Date: 11 March 1992
• Docket Number: C-11131
• Parties: Walter and Barbara WOOSLEY, Respondents, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Appellant. 89; CA A66879.

Page 1054

826 P.2d 1054

112 Or.App. 93

Walter and Barbara WOOSLEY, Respondents, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Appellant.

89C-11131; CA A66879.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 1991.

Decided March 11, 1992.

Ronald J. Clark, Portland, argued the cause, for appellant. With him on the briefs were Dianne K. Ericsson and Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, Portland.

J. Michael Alexander, Salem, argued the cause, for respondents. With him on the brief was Burt, Swanson, Lathen, Alexander & McCann, Salem.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and RICHARDSON and De MUNIZ, JJ.

DE MUNIZ, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. It contends that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. ORCP 60. We reverse.

In reviewing the denial of defendant's motion, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the nonmoving parties, and we will reverse the judgment only if there is no evidence to support the verdict. Or. Const., Art. VII, § 3; Brown v. J.C. Penney Co., 297 Or. 695, 705, 688 P.2d 811 (1984); Lynch v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 108 Or.App. 159, 163, 814 P.2d 552 (1991).

Plaintiffs own, and reside in, a mobile home in Aumsville. Defendant issued them an insurance policy that provided, in part:

"COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE

"WE'LL pay for direct, sudden and accidental loss of, or damage to YOUR clothing, cooking utensils, radios, TVs, record players and YOUR other personal possessions up to [$6,400]. These personal effects must be located in YOUR mobile home or a fully enclosed adjacent structure located on YOUR premises. Personal effects are items incidental to the use of YOUR mobile home as a dwelling.

" * * * * *

"EXTENSION OF PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE

"WE'LL also pay up to 10% of the amount of Comprehensive Personal Effects Coverage for loss of, or damage to YOUR personal effects outside of, or off the premises of YOUR mobile home or fully enclosed adjacent structure caused by fire * * * or theft." (Emphasis in original.)

A Comprehensive Adjacent Structures Coverage section provides for coverage for losses to "adjacent structures," which are "structures on YOUR mobile home premises which are not attached to the mobile home." Damage to the adjacent structures that occurs when they are in transit is not covered.

Plaintiffs intended to move the mobile home to a new location in Turner. They moved some of their possessions to the new location. On December 3, 1988, plaintiffs were victimized by a theft of some of their personal property from the Turner site. On December 7, a fire destroyed a pole barn and additional personal property belonging to plaintiffs at the Turner location. Defendant paid plaintiffs a total of $1,280: $640 for each of the two losses. Plaintiffs contend that defendant is liable for the full amount of their losses from the Turner site.

Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that coverage for each loss was limited by the 10% ceiling found in the Extension of Personal Effects Coverage section of the policy. The court denied the motion and observed:

"[T]he explanation of why they never moved the trailer house may be entirely reasonable under these circumstances and the policy wouldn't require it to be done."

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $12,718.82.

The issue is whether the insurance policy on the mobile home in Aumsville limits coverage to 10% of plaintiffs' losses, which occurred in Turner. If the language in an insurance policy is unambiguous, then construing the contract is a question of law for the court. Timberline Equip. v. St. Paul Fire and Mar. Ins., 281 Or. 639, 643, 576 P.2d 1244 (1978); Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 106 Or.App. 329, 332, 807 P.2d 808 (1991).

For losses to be covered under the Comprehensive Personal Effects Coverage provisions, the personal property must have been located either in pl...