Court Opinion

ID: 9606752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:52:17.445321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:04.244110
License: Public Domain

*369PETERSON, J.
This case, like Carrier v. Hicks, 316 Or 341, 851 P2d 581 (1993), decided this day, involves a claim against the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association (OIGA) under ORS 734.510 etseq. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident with another motorist whose liability insurer became insolvent. Plaintiff made a claim under his own uninsured motorist liability coverage (UM coverage), the claim went to arbitration, and plaintiff was awarded $9,902. Plaintiffs total UM coverage was $100,000.
Plaintiff then continued with an action that he had filed against the other motorist and his employer. Defendants’ liability insurer had become insolvent, so the duty to defend devolved on OIGA. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that, because plaintiff had not exhausted his UM coverage, he had not exhausted his remedies, as required by ORS 734.650(1). The Court of Appeals reversed. Mazorol v. Coats, 102 Or App 8, 793 P2d 326 (1990).
The dispositive issues in this case are not distinguishable from the dispositive issues in Carrier v. Hicks, supra. For the reasons expressed in our decision in Carrier v. Hicks, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.