Case Name: AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review, v. Aaron T. CORUM; A.D.; Tuality Community Hospital, Inc., an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendants, M.J.N., Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a California Corporation, Respondent on Review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1995-05-18
Citations: 321 Or. 135
Docket Number: CC 9110-06813; CA A78835; SC S41978, S41979
Parties: AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review, v. Aaron T. CORUM; A.D.; Tuality Community Hospital, Inc., an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendants, M.J.N., Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a California Corporation, Respondent on Review.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 321
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Submitted on petitions for review filed January 25,
petitions for review allowed, decision of the Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration May 18, 1995
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review, v. Aaron T. CORUM; A.D.; Tuality Community Hospital, Inc., an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendants, M.J.N., Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a California Corporation, Respondent on Review.
(CC 9110-06813; CA A78835; SC S41978, S41979)
894 P2d 461
Kim Jefferies, of Wood Tatum Sanders & Murphy, Portland, filed the petition on behalf of petitioner on review/ respondent on review American Casualty Company.
Robert D. Bulkley, Jr., of Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, P.C., Portland, filed the petition on behalf ofrespondent on review/petitioner on review M.J.N. With him on the petition were Richard A. Kasson and Robert P. Stafford, of Kasson and Associates, Tigard.
Thomas W. Brown, of Cosgrave, Vergeer & Kester, Portland, filed a response brief on behalf of respondent on review Truck Insurance Exchange.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petitions for review are allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration in the light of Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or 397, 877 P2d 80 (1994).