ZRZ Realty Co. v. Beneficial Fire & Cas. Ins., 249 P.3d 111 (Or. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
ZRZ Realty Co. v. Beneficial Fire & Cas. Ins., 249 P.3d 111 (Or. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …because the part of the trial court's judgment that the court of appeals reversed does not relate to the awards of attorney fees, ors 20.220(3) did not require the court of appeals to reverse and vacate the fee awards. ⚠ not in text
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Howe v. Greenleaf (orctapp, 2014-01-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Howe v. Greenleaf (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
because the part of the trial court's judgment that the court of appeals reversed does not relate to the awards of attorney fees, ors 20.220(3) did not require the court of appeals to reverse and vacate the fee awards.
discussed Cited "see" Batten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2×)
Or. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117 , 126 n 8, 241 P3d 710 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (explaining that trial court had “allocated responsibility” for future cost to insured of remediating contaminated soil by assigning one insurer 90 percent of the total insured potential loss and the other the remaining 10 percent).
discussed Cited "see" Wright v. Turner (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 222 Or App 453, 465 , 194 P3d 167 (2008), adh’d to as modi- fied on recons, 225 Or App 257 , 201 P3d 912 (2009), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 349 Or 117 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (noting that whether an insurance policy “is more properly characterized as part of the grant of coverage or an exclu- sion” is “critical to the allocation of the burden of proof”).
discussed Cited "see" Cox v. Persson (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See *1201 ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins. , 349 Or. 657 , 661-62, 249 P.3d 111 (2011) (on remand from Supreme Court for retrial of an issue previously tried in bench trial under incorrect legal standard, trial court has discretion to take additional evidence if it determines that doing so is appropriate); see also Jett v. Ford Motor Company , 192 Or.
discussed Cited "see" Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 222 Or App 453 , 194 P3d 167 (2008) (ZRZ I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 225 Or App 257 , 201 P3d 912 (2009) (ZRZ IT), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 349 Or 117 , 241 P3d 710 (2010) (ZRZ III), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) {ZRZ IV).
discussed Cited "see" Big River Construction, Inc. v. City of Tillamook (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 149-50 , 150 n 31, 241 P3d 710 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (part of judgment reversed on appeal did not relate to the award of attorney fees, therefore fees should not have been reversed).
discussed Cited "see" West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc. (2×)
Or. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117,150 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims (2×)
Or. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 150 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" FountainCourt Homeowners' Ass'n v. FountainCourt Development, LLC (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 127 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (insured has the burden to prove coverage, while the insurer has the burden to prove an exclusion from coverage) (citing Lewis v. Aetna Insurance Co., 264 Or 314, 316 , 505 P2d 914 (1973), and Stanford v. American Guaranty Life Ins.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rudder v. Hosack (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." FountainCourt Homeowners' Ass'n v. FountainCourt Development, LLC (2×)
Or. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117 , 241 P3d 710 (2010), on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc. (2×)
Or. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Eclectic Investment, 357 Or at 331 (“Even if the county is correct that a claim for common-law indemnity includes a claim for attorney fees, it is incorrect that a defendant has an independent claim for attorney fees when the plaintiff’s claim for restitution itself is not viable.”); see also ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 150 , 241 P3d 710, 729 (2010), opinion adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (holding that the Court of Appeals erred by reversing a fee award based on its rever- sal of another claim that had no effect on t…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc. (2×)
Or. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Eclectic Investment, 357 Or at 331 (“Even if the county is correct that a claim for common-law indemnity includes a claim for attorney fees, it is incorrect that a defendant has an independent claim for attorney fees when the plaintiffs claim for restitution itself is not viable.”); see also ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 150 , 241 P3d 710, 729 (2010), opinion adh’d to as modified on recons, 349 Or 657 , 249 P3d 111 (2011) (holding that the Court of Appeals erred by reversing a fee award based on its reversal of another claim that had no effect on the pa…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ZRZ REALTY COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, for Itself and as Trustee of the Zidell Remediation Funding Trust, an Oregon Trust; Zidell Marine Corporation, a Washington Corporation; Tube Forgings of America, Inc., an Oregon Corporation; And Pon Exploration, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Fka Zidell Explorations, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Petitioners on Review,
v.
BENEFICIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Succeeded in Interest by J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company, Et. Al., Defendants, and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON, and Certain London Market Insurance Companies, AKA “Lloyds,” Including the Following Defendant Companies: Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A., Insurance Company of North America (UK), Ltd., Commercial Union Assurance Company, PLC, Edinburgh Assurance Company, Ltd., Ocean Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation, Ltd., Cornhill Insurance Company, Ltd., Dominion Insurance Company, Ltd., Eagle Star Insurance Company, Ltd., the Threadneedle Insurance Company, Ltd., Excess Insurance Company, Ltd., London & Edinburgh General Insurance Company, Ltd., New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd., Road Transport & General Insurance Company, Ltd., South British Insurance Company, Ltd., Ulster Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., the United Scottish Insurance Company, Ltd., Yorkshire Insurance Company, Ltd., Hansa Re & Marine Insurance Company, (UK) Ltd., La Reunion Francaise (UK), Ltd., Economic Insurance Company, Ltd., Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, Ltd., Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, Swiss Union General Insurance Company, Ltd., Leadenhall Insurance Company, Ltd., Bishopgate Insurance Company, Ltd., Home Insurance Company, Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Company (UK), Ltd., Switzerland General Insurance Company, Ltd., River Thames Insurance Company, Ltd., Royal Insurance Company, Ltd., British Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., British & Foreign Insurance Company, Ltd., National Provincial Insurance Company, Ltd., the Scottish Lion Insurance Company, Ltd., Skandia Marine Insurance Company (UK), Ltd., Drake Insurance Company, Ltd., Sphere Insurance Company, Ltd., Sphere Drake Insurance Company, PLC, Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., British Law Insurance Company, Ltd., and Continental Assurance Company of London, Ltd., Liverpool Marine & General Insurance Company, Ltd., Phoenix Assurance Company, Ltd., Fine Art & General Insurance Company, Ltd., Anglo-French Insurance Company, Ltd., Baloise Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., Baltica Insurance Company (UK), Ltd., Fuji Fire & Marine Insurance Company (UK), Ltd., R.W. Gibbon Group, La Preservatrice Group, Switzerland General Insurance Company (London), Ltd., Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Ltd., Iron Trades Mutual Insurance Company, Ltd., Minster Insurance Company, Ltd., Reliance Insurance Company, Sirius (UK) Insurance, PLC, Indemnity Marine Assurance Company, Ltd., London & Hull Maritime Insurance Company, Ltd., and Associated Companies, C.A. Parr Agencies, Ltd., Sun Insurance Office, Marine Insurance Company, Limited, and Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Limited, Respondents on Review
CC 9708-06226; CA A121145; SC S057155.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Mar 3, 2011.
249 P.3d 111
Bruce L. Campbell, Miller Nash LLP, Portland, filed the response to the petition for reconsideration for petitioners on review., Thomas W. Sondag, Lane Powell PC, Portland, filed the petition for reconsideration and reply in support for respondents on review. With him on the petition and reply were John Folawn and Folawn Alterman & Richardson LLP.
Kistler.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
[*661] KISTLER, J.

Defendants seek reconsideration of our opinion in ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire and Casualty Ins., 349 Or 117, 241 P3d 710 (2010). We allow their petition for reconsideration, modify our earlier opinion, and adhere to that opinion, as modified.

Defendants seek reconsideration on three grounds. We reject without discussion the first two grounds that defendants raise and write to address the third ground regarding the scope of the remand. In ZRZ Realty, we determined that, for the purposes of the express fortuity policies, the trial court had erred in placing the burden on defendants to prove that damages were neither expected nor intended. Id. at 132. In remanding for a retrial on that issue, the opinion stated:

“In retrying that issue, the trial court must determine initially whether it is necessary to supplement the record; that is, if neither party can establish a specific basis for saying that the record would have been different if the trial court had placed the burden of production and persuasion initially on [plaintiffs], then the trial court may find, based on the existing record, what [plaintiffs] expected or intended for the purposes of the relevant express fortuity policies. If, on either the existing or a supplemented record, the trial court makes the same findings on remand that the trial court did initially, then it presumably can reenter the judgment, with any appropriate adjustment for attorney fees. Conversely, if the trial court reaches a different conclusion on remand as to when [plaintiffs] expected or intended property damage for the purposes of the express fortuity policies, then the court also will presumably have to adjust the findings allocating responsibility for remedi-ating the damage between [defendants and plaintiffs].”

Id. at 148 (footnote omitted).

In their petition on reconsideration, defendants note that the trial judge who heard this case has died. Defendants observe that our opinion could be read to foreclose the trial judge who hears this case on remand from hearing live testimony, even on issues on which credibility matters. Defendants ask us to clarify our opinion in that respect. Plaintiffs[*662] respond that the judge who tried the case did not make any credibility findings and that defendants have not identified any issues that would preclude the trial court, on remand, from relying on the existing record. In providing guidance for the trial court on remand, we did not intend to foreclose the trial court from taking live testimony on remand if the trial court, in its discretion, determines that live testimony is appropriate. We accordingly modify our earlier opinion to clarify that point.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is adhered to as modified.