Court Opinion

ID: 9587710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:25:33.045634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:32.699144
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
concurring.
The majority and I are heading toward the same destination; I take a different route to reach it, however. I agree with the majority that the requirement in ORS 806.130(3) that the self-insurer pay the “same amounts” that an insurer would be obligated to pay did not make defendant Curtin’s insurer; i.e., it did not make defendant the insurer of the permissive users of its vehicles. Additionally, Curtin chose not to purchase insurance from defendant. Although defendant had no obligation to provide coverage for Curtin, it was obligated under the financial responsibility law, and for the protection of the public, to respond in damages for the negligent use of its vehicles. That leads to the question that the majority does not answer, and that I believe must be answered to fully resolve this case: What is the extent of the self-insurer’s obligation and does that obligation constitute “other collectible insurance” with respect to plaintiffs policy issued to Curtin?
In the jurisdictions that have considered the question, the weight of authority is that self-insurance for the purpose of satisfying the financial responsibility laws is not “other collectible insurance” within the meaning of other insurance clauses in liability insurance policies. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Marriott Homes, Inc., 286 Ala 231, 238 So 2d 730 (1970); Southeast Title & Ins. Co. v. Collins, 226 So 2d 247 (Fla Dist Ct App 1969); American Family Mut. Co. v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 517 SW2d 110 (Mo 1974); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, etc., 221 Pa Super 161, 289 A2d 179 (1972); Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 796 SE 2d 763 (Tex App 1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Zellars, 462 SW2d 550 (Tex 1970); Home Indem Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 314 SW2d 861 (Tex Civ App 1958). A minority of jurisdictions have held that the self-insured has the functional equivalent of a policy insuring itself. White v. Howard, 573 A2d 513 (NJ Super AD *5231990); Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Burdette’s Leasing Service, Inc., 268 SC 472, 234 SE2d 870 (1977). The determination as to what the legislature might have intended with respect to this question must be based on the text and context of our statutes.
From a definitional standpoint, self-insurance is not the equivalent of insurance. ORS 731.102 defines “insurance” as
“a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified or ascertainable amount or benefit upon determinable risk contingencies.”
Unlike insurance, a certificate of self-insurance does not provide indemnity to a named insured; rather, it protects the public against the uninsured or underinsured driver’s negligent use of the certificate holder’s vehicles by proof of an ability to pay damages. ORS 806.130(2). When the negligent driver who uses a certificate holder’s vehicle is uninsured, or when damages are in excess of the limits of the driver’s policy, the self-insurer must be prepared to respond in damages to the person injured in the same amounts that an insurer would be obligated to pay on behalf of its insured under a motor vehicle liability insurance policy. The Financial Responsibility Law does not impose on the self-insurer every obligation as to the users of its vehicles that might be undertaken by an insurer in its agreement to indemnify its insured. As the majority correctly states, the statutes do not make the self-insured party primarily responsible for the negligence of a permissive user. For all these reasons, I conclude that the self-insurer’s obligation under the Financial Responsibility Law does not require it to make contribution to a primarily responsible insurer.
De Muniz and Leeson, JJ., join in this concurrence.