Truck Insurance Exchange v. Friend
291 P.3d 743
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Friend was injured driving a 1967 Ford Mustang registered to Kehkia, owner/president of TWW, Inc.
- Truck Insurance Exchange seeks a declaration that UIM benefits do not apply because TWW may not own the Mustang.
- Friend counters with three theories for UIM coverage under TWW’s garage policy.
- The trial court granted Friend summary judgment; Truck appeals arguing genuine issues of material fact remain.
- Key disputes center on who owned the Mustang, whether ORS 822.040(1)(d) and similar statutes apply, and whether ORS 742.504 requires UIM coverage for Friend.
- The court reverses and remands, finding unresolved material facts as to ownership, permission to use, and policy interpretation under ORS 742.504 and related provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy provides liability coverage for Friend as a matter of law | Friend asserted the policy mirrors liability with UIM per ORS 742.502(2)(a) | Truck contends Friend is not “you” and thus lacks liability coverage unless the dealer owns the auto | No liability coverage for Friend as a matter of law because Friend is not the named insured |
| Whether ORS 822.040(l)(d) mandates TWW ownership of the Mustang | Friend argues ORS 822.040(l)(d) makes TWW the owner of all dealer vehicles | Truck argues ORS 822.040 is irrelevant to policy ownership terms and facts remain disputed | Not dispositive; vehicle-code provision does not define ownership for insurance terms and does not resolve ownership as a matter of law |
| Whether ORS 742.504 requires UIM coverage for Friend as a matter of law | Friend would be within the insured under ORS 742.504 if ownership/permission issue supports coverage | Permission is a factual question tied to ownership; unresolved facts preclude summary judgment | Not resolved; factual questions about permission and ownership remain, requiring remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Ins. Co. v. Crutchfield, 200 Or. App. 149 (Or. App. 2005) (meaning of own in policy context; vehicle code not controlling for insurance terms)
- North Pacific Ins. v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 200 Or. App. 473 (Or. App. 2005) (permission requires ownership/possessory interest for insurance)
- Crutchfield v. Guthrie Motors, 200 Or. App. 149 (Or. App. 2005) (vehicle-code ownership concepts do not define insurer terms)
- Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or. 765 (Or. 1985) (interpret policy terms by ordinary purchaser’s intent)
- Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 313 Or. 464 (Or. 1992) (insurance policy interpretation is a matter of law)
- Denton v. International Health & Life, 270 Or. 444 (Or. 1974) (policy interpretation cautions about harmonizing provisions)