742.526
Primary nature of benefits.
(1) The personal injury protection benefits with respect to:
(a) The insured
and members of the family of the insured residing in the same household injured
while occupying the insured motor vehicle shall be primary.
(b) Passengers
injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle shall be primary.
(c) The insured
and members of family residing in the same household injured as pedestrians
shall be primary.
(d) The insured
and members of family residing in the same household injured while occupying a
motor vehicle not insured under the policy shall be excess.
(e) Pedestrians
injured by the insured motor vehicle, other than the insured and members of
family residing in the same household, shall be excess over any other
collateral benefits to which the injured person is entitled, including but not
limited to insurance benefits, governmental benefits or gratuitous benefits.
(2) The personal
injury protection benefits may be reduced or eliminated, if it is so provided
in the policy, when the injured person is entitled to receive, under the laws
of this state or any other state or the United States, workers’ compensation
benefits or any other similar medical or disability benefits. [Formerly
743.810]
Notes of Decisions
Carrigan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 949 P.2d 705 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Defendant makes a similar argument with respect to ORS 742.526, which provides primary PIP coverage to an insured person injured "while occupying a motor vehicle.”
Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 499 P.3d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 8× “524 in light of ORS 742.526, which sets the relationship between insurers as primary or excess in a particular loss.”
Anderson v. Farmers Ins., 71 P.3d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “ORS 742.526. Each PIP policy contained an “other insurance” clause prohibiting the “stacking” 1 of coverage: “If any applicable insurance other than this policy is issued to you or a family member by us or any other member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, the…”
Harvick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 495 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“When her insur- ance exhausted, and while she met the requisite threshold for wage-loss payments, plaintiff filed proof of loss with State Farm requesting wage-loss benefits under the applica- ble insurance policy.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.526(1) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.526(1)(e) — 1 case
Harvick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 495 P.3d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“When her insur- ance exhausted, and while she met the requisite threshold for wage-loss payments, plaintiff filed proof of loss with State Farm requesting wage-loss benefits under the applica- ble insurance policy.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.526(2) — 1 case
Anderson v. Farmers Ins., 71 P.3d 144 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“ORS 742.526. Each PIP policy contained an “other insurance” clause prohibiting the “stacking” 1 of coverage: “If any applicable insurance other than this policy is issued to you or a family member by us or any other member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.