Case Name: Ernest J. MAZOROL, III, Respondent on Review, v. Steven Douglas COATS, Petitioner on Review, and DOUGLAS S. COATS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-05-21
Citations: 316 Or. 367
Docket Number: CC 87-CV-0212-WE; CA A50694; SC S37382
Parties: Ernest J. MAZOROL, III, Respondent on Review, v. Steven Douglas COATS, Petitioner on Review, and DOUGLAS S. COATS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant.
Judges: PETERSON, J.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 316
Pages: 367–375

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted November 7,1990; reassigned April 13,
decision of the Court of Appeals reversed; judgment of the circuit court affirmed May 21, 1993
Ernest J. MAZOROL, III, Respondent on Review, v. Steven Douglas COATS, Petitioner on Review, and DOUGLAS S. COATS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant.
(CC 87-CV-0212-WE; CA A50694; SC S37382)
852 P2d 178
R. L. Marceau, of Marceau, Karnopp, Petersen, Noteboom & Hubei, Bend, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Dennis J. Hubei.
Warren John West, Bend, argued the cause for respondent on review. William F. Gaiy, of Harrang, Long, Watkinson, Laird & Rubenstein, P.C., Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Glenn Klein, Eugene.
PETERSON, J.
Fadeley, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Unis, J., joined.
Unis, J., filed a separate dissenting opinion.

Opinion:
PETERSON, J.
This case, like Carrier v. Hicks, 316 Or 341, 851 P2d 581 (1993), decided this day, involves a claim against the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association (OIGA) under ORS 734.510 etseq. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with another motorist whose liability insurer became insolvent. Plaintiff made a claim under his own uninsured motorist liability coverage (UM coverage), the claim went to arbitration, and plaintiff was awarded $9,902. Plaintiffs total UM coverage was $100,000.
Plaintiff then continued with an action that he had filed against the other motorist and his employer. Defendants' liability insurer had become insolvent, so the duty to defend devolved on OIGA. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that, because plaintiff had not exhausted his UM coverage, he had not exhausted his remedies, as required by ORS 734.650(1). The Court of Appeals reversed. Mazorol v. Coats, 102 Or App 8, 793 P2d 326 (1990).
The dispositive issues in this case are not distinguishable from the dispositive issues in Carrier v. Hicks, supra. For the reasons expressed in our decision in Carrier v. Hicks, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.