Wright v. Turner
322 P.3d 476
| Or. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff, a passenger in a truck, suffered injuries from two successive collisions by negligent drivers Turner and then Oliver.
- Plaintiff's UIM policy with Mutual of Enumclaw is limited to $500,000 for damages arising from any one automobile accident, regardless of number of vehicles involved.
- The trial court submitted damages to a jury but not the number of accidents; the jury verdict was for $979,540 against Mutual of Enumclaw.
- Court of Appeals held there was only one accident as a matter of law, relying on Baggett and holding the second collision was proximately derivative of the first.
- Oregon statutes require minimum UM/UIM coverage tied to the concept of ‘any one accident’; the legislature’s intent governs interpretation of that term in statutorily mandated policies.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding there is a jury question whether there was more than one accident and remanded for factual determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of accidents under statute | Wright contends more than one accident occurred. | Mutual contends only one accident occurred under the policy. | There may be more than one accident; question is for the jury. |
| Legislature's intent in statutorily mandated policy | Policy terms must reflect ordinary meaning tied to statutory requirements. | Court should align with prior contractual interpretation. | Legislature's intent governs the meaning of 'accident' in statutorily mandated policies. |
| Role of court vs. jury on number of accidents | Number of accidents is a mixed question of fact and law, but trial court erred in not letting jury decide. | Court should treat it as a purely legal issue. | Whether there are multiple accidents is a jury question; remand for factual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America, 341 Or 642 (2006) (policy interpretation where statute mandates analysis of legislative intent)
- Moore v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 317 Or 235 (1993) (statutory-mandated terms require legislature-intent analysis)
- Fox v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 327 Or 500 (1998) (interpret policy language when mandated by statute)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation framework for ambiguous terms)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (principles of statutory interpretation and context)