Case ID: or_296/html/0708-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On defendant’s petition for review filed November 18, 1983,
    of a decision of the Court of Appeals, petition for review allowed, reversed and remanded to Court of Appeals with instructions April 3, 1984
    WARM SPRINGS FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES, Respondent on Review, v. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INSURANCE CO., Petitioner on Review.
    
    (NO. [ AXXXX-XXXXX ], CA A24017, SC S30073)
    678 P2d 266
    James N. Westwood, Bruce A. Rubin, John A. Lusky and Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, for petitioner on review. On the brief in the Court of Appeals were James N. Westwood, Fredric A. Yerke, Bruce A. Rubin and Miller, Nash, Yerke, Wiener & Hager, Portland.
    On the briefs in the Court of Appeals for respondent on review were R.L. Marceau, Howard G. Arnett and Johnson, Marceau, Karnopp & Petersen, Bend.
    Before Peterson, Chief Justice, and Lent, Linde, Carson and Jones, Justices.
    
      
       Appeal from judgment of the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, James R. Ellis, Judge. 64 Or App 856, 669 P2d 389 (1983).
    
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant’s petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals, insofar as that decision is based upon Mountain Fir Lbr Co. v. EBI Co., 64 Or App 312, 667 P2d 567 (1983), is reversed. See Mountain Fir Lbr Co. v. EBI Co., 296 Or 639, 679 P2d 296 (1984).

Plaintiff, respondent on review in this court, contends that the Court of Appeals did not address plaintiffs argument in that court “that Federal Indian law principles preclude the application of the State Insurance Code statute which provides the basis for the illegality claim.” Defendant replies that that contention was either not properly before the Court of Appeals or that that court has already summarily disposed of it against the plaintiff. On the record before us, we cannot resolve that controversy.

This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for its consideration of that issue.