Case Name: Penny L. LUNSFORD, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-02-17
Citations: 118 Or. App. 308
Docket Number: 9007-04008; CA A67556
Parties: Penny L. LUNSFORD, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Respondent.
Judges: Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 118
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 18, 1991,
affirmed February 17,
reconsideration denied May 12,
petition for review denied June 22,1993 (317 Or 162)
Penny L. LUNSFORD, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Respondent.
(9007-04008; CA A67556)
846 P2d 1206
Ronald H. Elzinga, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs was William D. Bailey, Portland.
Patrick N. Rothwell, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Hallmark, Keating & Abbott, P.C., Portland.
Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Leeson, J., vice Buttler, J., retired.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals a summary judgment dismissing her action against defendant for breach of an automobile insurance contract. We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured when the car she was driving collided with one driven by Peterson. Peterson was at fault. Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Peterson for $25,000. Because there were multiple claimants, plaintiff received only $17,500 of the $50,000 per accident limit on Peterson's liability insurance. Peterson paid plaintiff $2,500 in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Plaintiff then sued defendant, her own insurance carrier, for $7,500 in damages, or, alternatively, for an order compelling defendant to arbitrate and to pay her attorney fees pursuant to ORS 742.061. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appeals.
The sole issue is whether former ORS 743.789(2) (renumbered ORS 742.502(2)), requires defendant to pay "underinsurance coverage" on plaintiffs claim. It does not. Under the statute, defendant is required to provide underinsurance coverage only if plaintiffs coverage exceeded Peterson's liability coverage at the time of the accident. Plaintiff acknowledges that her coverage limits were identical to Peterson's.
Affirmed.
ORS 742.502(2) provides, in part:
"Offers of uninsured motorist coverage larger than the [statutory minimum] required by ORS 806.070 shall include underinsurance coverage for damages or death caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle that is insured for an amount that is less than the insured's uninsured motorist coverage."