Court Opinion

ID: 9791084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:05:03.498867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:33.786161
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent only from that part of the majority decision which modifies the trial court’s decision and awards plaintiff an additional $2,500.
Lamb-Weston et al. v. Ore. Auto. Ins. Co., 210 Or 110, 341 P2d 110, 346 P2d 643, 76 ALR2d 485 (1959), *174takes the drastic action, justifiably, of disregarding contractual terms because such terms are repugnant and, therefore, cannot both be applied. However, I see no reason to disregard those parts of the contract which are not repugnant. Both of the “other-insurance” clauses are similar in that they provide that if there is other insurance the total recovery from all insurance is limited to $5,000. The Oregon Mutual provision accomplishing this provides, “then the damages shall be deemed not to exceed * * * [$5,000].” The Pacific Automobile policy provides, “this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which * * * [$5,000] exceeds the sum of the applicable limits of all such other insurance.”
I would hold, as the contracts provide, that plaintiff’s recovery is limited to a total of $5,000.