Opinion ID: 1209906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the logical consequences of the competing interpretations point away from the one chosen by the majority

Text: It bears noting that the majority's interpretation would have the result of creating uncertainty and a lack of uniform outcomes for similarly situated insureds. At the time the insured and the passengers make claims, an insurer properly may deny coverage. If one claimant later settles, did the insurer deny coverage wrongfully to the others? If one claimant signs a waiver of claims the day after the accident, is the waiver effective to remove the insured and the other claimants from the effect of ORS 742.504(2)(g)(B)? If so, that insured is in a better position than the otherwise similarly situated insured whose passenger declines to sign a waiver of claims. By contrast, if the statute is interpreted to relate to the time of the accident, the application of the statute will be certain and uniform. Moreover, the majority's interpretation is likely to discourage insurers from settling claims like the one that was settled here. By contrast, if the statute is interpreted to relate to the time of the accident, the incentive to settle would remain.