Court Opinion

ID: 9591426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:04:17.26597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:10.671846
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur without reservation in the court’s opinion, but write separately to express my opinion that the plaintiffs arbitration claim may still be “alive.”
The trial court properly dismissed the request for court-ordered arbitration because the insurer had not failed, neglected or refused to arbitrate. The trial court was correct in holding that the insurer was not in “default.”1
Whether the filing of a petition for court-ordered arbitration constitutes a “written demand for arbitration,” and if so, whether that demand would comply with the policy provision that the “arbitration * * * must begin within the time limit allowed for bodily injury * * * actions” is not before *624us. I am inclined to the view that the filing of the petition met the policy requirement of a “written demand for arbitration” and that this would “begin” the proceedings.
Were I the plaintiffs attorney, I would renew the demand for arbitration and request that the arbitration proceed under the policy provision quoted in the first paragraph of the court’s opinion.
Jones and Gillette, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.

 ORS 36.310 provides in part:
“If the making of the contract or submission or the default is an issue, the court or the judge shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.”