Archive | July, 2014

PIP Offer of Judgment Does Not Create Issue Preclusion on UIM Claim

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Miller v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 262 Or App 730, — P3d — (2014), addressing issue preclusion in a lawsuit involving an insured’s claim for personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits.  The insurance company made an […]

Continue Reading 1

Insured Cannot Demand Confidentiality Agreement per Oregon Court

The Oregon Court of Appeals on July 2, 2014, issued an opinion in Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Masood, — Or App —, — P3d —, 2014 WL 2978311 (2014), addressing whether an insured may condition compliance with an insurance company’s requests for information on requiring execution of a […]

Continue Reading 0

PIP Regular Use Exclusion Applies to Ride-Share per Washington Court

The Washington Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion on July 22, 2014, addressing the regular use exclusion under the personal injury protection (PIP) provisions of an automobile insurance policy.  In State Farm Ins. Co. v. Rollins, Case No. 45003-8-II (Div. II, July 22, 2014), the court found that an […]

Continue Reading 0

Washington Federal Court Analyzes Cedell Decision

A federal district court judge in Washington recently issued an opinion in MKB Constructors v American Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 WL 2526901 (W.D. Wash. May 27, 2014), addressing an insurance company’s ability to assert the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in the context of insurance coverage litigation.  The court determined […]

Continue Reading 0