The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled in plaintiff's favor on each. Defendant assigns error to each of the trial court's rulings on the cross-motions for summary judgment. He argues that under the language of the policy, specifically the conformity clause and a conflict of laws analysis, Washington law controls and that under Washington law he is entitled to the disputed benefits. The parties agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that their dispute should be resolved on summary judgment. We review the trial court's interpretation of the insurance policy for errors of law.
Defendant observes that Oregon law favors effectuating the parties' choice of law.
Defendant also argues that Washington law applies, because Washington has the most significant relationship with the policy and the parties to it. Defendant contends that he was using the insured vehicle when he was injured. Under Washington law, that provision would necessarily yield to the broader definition of covered persons provided by the liability section. Defendant asserts that he is entitled to coverage based on the conformity clause of the policy. Plaintiff responds that Oregon law governs the construction of the policy as it relates to the facts of this case.