Case ID: or-app_123/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      RIGGS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed September 1,
    reconsideration allowed; opinion (122 Or App 77, 857 P2d 158) modified and adhered to as modified October 6,
    petition for review denied December 14, 1993 (318 Or 171)
    NORTH PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Respondent, v. UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Lyman Larabee, individually and dba United Saw Service, Marjorie Marsh, Raymond L. Marsh, Frances L. Marsh, Christopher L. Marsh, Lafran, Inc., and Lee R. Marsh, individually and dba United Saw Service, Vernetta E. Larabee, Sidney B. Lewis, Jr., and Richard Morseth, Defendants, CITY OF CORVALLIS, Appellant.
    
    (C 89-0777; CA A72430)
    858 P2d 1361
    Michael A. Lehner and Lehner, Mitchell & Rodrigues, Portland, for petition.
    Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
    RIGGS, J.
   RIGGS, J.

Plaintiff petitions for review of our opinion reversing a summary judgment. 122 Or App 77, 857 P2d 158 (1993). Treating the petition as one for reconsideration, we allow it and modify our former opinion. ORAP 9.15(1).

Plaintiff insured a chrome plating facility that contaminated groundwater in Corvallis. Both the chrome plating facility and city are liable for clean-up costs. City gave notice to and sought indemnity from plaintiff. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable due to tardy and inadequate notice. Its motion for summary judgment was granted, and city and chrome plating facility appealed. We held that summary judgment was inappropriate because questions of fact remained concerning the adequacy of the notice.

In our opinion, we mistakenly referred to city as ‘ ‘the insured.” City was, in fact, not a named insured, and therefore we modify our opinion by removing the language that named city as an insured. The modification does not alter our analysis. Plaintiff admits that a party other than an insured can give notice as long as the purpose of the notice requirement is satisfied. Lusch v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 272 Or 593, 599, 538 P2d 902 (1975).

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.