Wright v. Turner, 489 P.3d 102

Background

On April 16, 2004 two collisions occurred: Turner’s sedan struck the front of the truck carrying plaintiff; while plaintiff attempted to call 9‑1‑1, Oliver rear‑ended the truck, pushing it into the sedan; plaintiff sustained severe injuries.
Plaintiff sued Turner and Oliver (both conceded negligent), recovered $175,000 in settlements, and pursued underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her insurer (Mutual of Enumclaw).
Plaintiff’s UIM policy limited recovery to $500,000 “resulting from any one automobile accident.” A first jury awarded total damages of $979,540.
Oregon Supreme Court (Wright II) held the number of “accidents” is a factual question under the statute and remanded for a jury determination whether there was one accident or two.
On remand the jury found two accidents and that it could not “separate the cause” of plaintiff’s injuries (i.e., damages were indivisible); the trial court awarded the full damages (minus offsets). The Court of Appeals (Wright III) reversed, holding apportionment per accident was required and that the insured bore the burden of proving apportionment.
The Oregon Supreme Court in this opinion reverses the Court of Appeals and affirms the trial court: a jury may find damages indivisible (concurrent causes) and is not required to apportion damages between accidents when it cannot separate causes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insurer’s concession of tortfeasors’ liability in prior trial precludes insurer from contesting apportionment of damages between accidents	Wright: liability concessions resolved tort claims; remand limited to number of accidents only, so apportionment was not open on remand	Mutual: liability concession doesn’t resolve contractual question of how UIM policy limits apply; insurer may require apportionment between accidents	Held: Liability concessions do not foreclose the separate contractual question of how policy limits apply; apportionment was properly before the jury.
Whether jury may find plaintiff’s injuries "indivisible" (caused by concurrent causes) and thus award full recovery without apportioning damages between two accidents	Wright: jury should decide whether damages are separable; if causes are concurrent/substantial factors for all damages, damages may be indivisible and full recovery permitted	Mutual: jury must apportion damages between accidents; if insured cannot prove per‑accident damages, policy limit for a single accident applies and recovery is capped	Held: Jury may find, as a factual matter, that causes are concurrent/indivisible under established causation law; trial court correctly instructed jury it could find injuries indivisible.
Who bears burden of proof on apportionment when two accidents are found	Wright: trial court placed on insurer the burden to prove percentage if jury found damages separable; plaintiff argued apportionment issue not open or insured should not bear burden	Mutual/Ct. of Appeals: insured bears burden to prove damages attributable to each accident (coverage/limit question)	Held: The Court rejects the Court of Appeals’ allocation rule; the opinion focuses on correctness of instructions allowing an indivisibility finding and does not adopt the COA’s rule that insured must bear apportionment burden in all cases.
Whether trial court erred by instructing jury it could conclude it "could not separate the cause" and therefore declare injuries indivisible	Wright: such an instruction fits statutory/causation framework and follows precedent allowing concurrent causes to produce indivisible harm	Mutual: instruction improperly permits a finding that thwarts policy limits and avoids required apportionment	Held: No error — instruction accurately stated law on causation and permitted the jury to decide indivisibility; insurer’s arguments were unpersuasive.

Key Cases Cited

Wright v. Turner, 354 Or. 815 (Or. 2014) (Wright II) (statutory interpretation: number of "accidents" is a factual question for the jury)
Wright v. Turner, 253 Or. App. 18 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (Wright I) (court of appeals decision on single‑accident issue reversed by Wright II)
Joshi v. Providence Health System, 342 Or. 152 (Or. 2006) (concurrent tortfeasors each liable if negligence was a substantial factor)
McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical, 270 Or. 375 (Or. 1974) (indivisible harm caused by successive/independent negligent acts; each tortfeasor may be liable)
Sandford v. Chevrolet Div., General Motors, 292 Or. 590 (Or. 1982) (discussion distinguishing comparative causation from comparative fault)
Mid‑Century Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 344 Or. 196 (Or. 2008) (discussion of UIM trigger under statutory scheme)
Bergmann v. Hutton, 337 Or. 596 (Or. 2004) (distinguishing coverage terms from policy limits)
Fox v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 327 Or. 500 (Or. 1998) (statutory interpretation governs mandatory policy language)
Vogelin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 346 Or. 490 (Or. 2009) (ORS 742.504 establishes minimum UM/UIM policy terms)
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or. 1 (Or. 2011) (overview of Oregon comparative fault statutes)