NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD SCHEEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35725 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01112-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2018**

Portland, Oregon

Before: CLIFTON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,*** District 

Judge.

GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company appeals from the district court’s 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 6 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35725 

summary judgment order and bench trial decision in favor of Gerald Scheel. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

GuideOne has filed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (“PAU”) with 

Canadian authorities that effectively prevents it from defending claims on the basis 

that its policy did not provide the minimum coverage amount of C$150,000 required 

by British Columbia law. Separately, the law of British Columbia requires a 

motorist to carry insurance for personal injury protection of at least C$150,000. The 

Personal Injury Protection Endorsement in Scheel’s policy limited GuideOne’s 

liability to $25,000. GuideOne urges us to reverse the district court’s finding that 

the higher C$150,000 Canadian limits apply to Scheel. Specifically, GuideOne 

argues that because Scheel filed his action in Oregon, rather than in Canada, the

higher Canadian limits do not apply. We disagree.

The district court decided the higher Canadian limits applied on two

independent grounds, one based on Oregon state law principles of insurance contract 

interpretation and the other based on Canadian law interpreting PAUs. We affirm 

based on the Oregon state law ground. 

Interpreting GuideOne’s policy under Oregon law, the district court correctly 

found that the Out-of-State Coverage clause promised medical benefits coverage at 

the minimum limits required in the jurisdiction where a collision occurs. Scheel’s 

collision occurred in Canada. Thus, the district court correctly interpreted the policy 
3 17-35725 

as applying the C$150,000 Canadian limit. 

GuideOne also appeals the district court’s interpretation of “expenses 

incurred” to mean Scheel’s expenses at the time of treatment. GuideOne contends 

it should not be liable for medical billing amounts Scheel did not pay due to his 

medical insurer’s negotiations with medical providers. Again, we disagree. The 

district court correctly found the phrase, “expenses incurred,” refers to those 

expenses to which Scheel became personally liable at the time of the treatment, not 

the actual amount he paid to resolve such expenses. See, e.g., White v. Jubitz Corp., 

347 Or. 212, 219 P.3d 566, 578 (2009) (“A plaintiff who is injured and who obtains 

necessary medical treatment becomes ‘liable or subject to’ reasonable charges for 

that treatment and thereby ‘incurs’ them . . . Whether or by what means the plaintiff 

or a third party satisfies medical charges is a matter between the plaintiff, the third 

party, and the medical providers.”). Therefore, the district court’s judgment is 

correct as a matter of Oregon law. 

AFFIRMED.