insurance claim in Oregon

2024The plaintiff in Arrowood filed a civil breach of con- tract claim against the defendant seeking to recover dam- ages for an insurance claim it had paid to a third party after the defendant had defaulted on a student loan contract. 369 Or at 217 .

2024The plaintiff in Arrowood filed a civil breach of con- tract claim against the defendant seeking to recover dam- ages for an insurance claim it had paid to a third party after the defendant had defaulted on a student loan contract. 369 Or at 217 .

2026The estimate identified that value “at the time of loss.” Although defendant did not specifically admit to Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 105 (2026) 107 damaging the doors in question, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that the damage to the doors was the result of his criminal conduct.

2021In Callaway, 123 Or App at 21-23 , the exact amount at issue is not discernable from our opinion, but at least $997.50 of a $22,085.54 insur- ance claim was fraudulent, which we described as “clearly material.” In Fowler, 35 Or at 559 , the insured exagger- ated how much family clothing was lost in a fire, where the entire clothing claim was 10% of the total insurance claim.

2021Cite as 312 Or App 361 (2021) 365 in connection with the insurance claim and, in November 2017, interviewed plaintiff.

2021In Callaway, 123 Or App at 21-23 , the exact amount at issue is not discernable from our opinion, but at least $997.50 of a $22,085.54 insur- ance claim was fraudulent, which we described as “clearly material.” In Fowler, 35 Or at 559 , the insured exagger- ated how much family clothing was lost in a fire, where the entire clothing claim was 10% of the total insurance claim.

2020Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CV37770; A167409 469 P3d 271 Plaintiff, Arrowood Indemnity Company (Arrowood), paid a lending insti- tution’s insurance claim for losses it sustained after defendant defaulted on his student loans.

2019In response, the state primarily contrasts (1) defendant’s testimony at trial that, when he took the bicy- cle, he intended to “try to make it [a] little bit nicer than it was, try to fix it up a little bit so it’d be rideable again,” and (2) the insurance claim representative’s testimony at the restitution hearing that, after the police recovered the bicy- cle, a professional bicycle shop told the victim that “there was no way to repair the bicycle” because it was “in such Cite as 301 Or App 447 (2019) 453 disarray, both from damage and the handlebars, the frame, and the mechanics of it being

2016Co., 353 Or 210 , 221 n 8, 297 P3d 439 (2013).

2016Co., 353 Or 210 , 221 n 8, 297 P3d 439 (2013).

2004That would be this case if plaintiff's construction of the insurance clause were approved." Id. at 22-23 , 406 P.2d 556 .

2004That would be this case if plaintiff's construction of the insurance clause were approved." Id. at 22-23 , 406 P.2d 556 .

2004The court employed the same reasoning in Koennecke v. Waxwing Cedar Prod., 273 Or 639 , 543 P2d 669 (1975).

2004The court employed the same reasoning in Koennecke v. Waxwing Cedar Prod., 273 Or. *152 639, 543 P.2d 669 (1975).

1996Co., 236 Or 235, 238 , 388 P2d 21 (1963), this court was required to interpret the word “accident” as it applied to an insurance claim for “accidental bodily injury.” The court stated that “the word ‘accident’ denotes an incident or occurrence that happened by chance, without design and contrary to intention and expectation.” Id. at 245 .

1996Co., 236 Or 235, 238 , 388 P2d 21 (1963), this court was required to interpret the word “accident” as it applied to an insurance claim for “accidental bodily injury.” The court stated that “the word ‘accident’ denotes an incident or occurrence that happened by chance, without design and contrary to intention and expectation.” Id. at 245 .

1996In Ramco, Inc. v. Pacific Ins., 249 Or 666, 667 , 439 P2d 1002 (1968), the insured sought to recover for property damage on a third-party GCL policy.

1996In Ramco, Inc. v. Pacific Ins., 249 Or 666, 667 , 439 P2d 1002 (1968), the insured sought to recover for property damage on a third-party GCL policy.

1982In Santilli v. State Farm, 278 Or 53 , 562 P2d 965 (1977), a case involving a first party claim, 9 the court dealt with a tort for the bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim.

1982In Santilli v. State Farm, 278 Or 53 , 562 P2d 965 (1977), a case involving a first party claim, 9 the court dealt with a tort for the bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim.

1980In Miller and Miller, 21 Or App 253 , 534 P2d 512 (1975), we stated: "In requiring that the husband maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children, the trial court is in effect requiring the husband to make periodic payments which will further ensure the required support and maintenance of the children.

1980In Miller and Miller, 21 Or App 253 , 534 P2d 512 (1975), we stated: "In requiring that the husband maintain life insurance for the benefit of the children, the trial court is in effect requiring the husband to make periodic payments which will further ensure the required support and maintenance of the children.