289 P.3d 309
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- UIM coverage dispute arising from a 2004 multi-vehicle collision on I-5 in Oregon.
- Plaintiff settled with Turner and Oliver for $175,000; suit proceeds against insurer for underinsured motorist benefits.
- Policy provides a single $500,000 limit for all damages from any one automobile accident, regardless of number of vehicles.
- Trial record centers on whether the April 16, 2004 incident constitutes one accident or two for UIM purposes.
- The trial court did not apportion damages between potential accidents and entered judgment for the verdict amount minus settlements.
- On appeal, court reverses to apply the $500,000 limit to the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the incident constitutes one accident or two for UIM limits. | Plaintiff contends two separate accidents occurred; two $500,000 limits should apply. | Defendant contends only one accident occurred; a single $500,000 limit should apply. | One accident; single $500,000 limit applies. |
| Whether the insurer was bound by its amended answer admitting $500,000 per-accident coverage. | Amendment cured any prior admission and bound court to $500,000 per accident. | Original admission of $1,000,000 was superseded; amended answer controls. | Insurer not bound by the original admission; amended answer controls. |
| Preservation and whether apportionment of damages between potential accidents was required. | Issue preserved; apportionment unnecessary where only one accident occurred. | If two accidents occurred, damages must be apportioned or remanded. | Preserved and apportionment not required given one-accident finding. |
| What remedy follows the one-accident determination (judgment amount and offsets). | Judgment should reflect verdict amount offset by settlements. | Judgment should reflect one $500,000 policy limit minus settlements if applicable. | Remand with instruction to apply $500,000 limit to plaintiff's judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America, 341 Or 642 (Or. 2006) (insurance policy interpretation framework; ambiguity analysis and context)
- Baggett v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1387 (Cal. App. 1989) (one accident can involve multiple collisions; proximate cause analysis)
- Botts v. Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 284 Or 95 (Or. 1978) (no universal definition of accident; analyze particular circumstances)
- St. Paul Fire v. McCormick & Baxter Creosoting, 324 Or 184 (Or. 1996) (definition of accident; context in insurance disputes)
- McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532 (Or. 1995) (binding admissions and amendments; judicial admissions)
- United States Auto. Ins. v. Baggett, not applicable; see Baggett above (Cal. App. 1989) (see Baggett)