742.534
Reimbursement of other insurers paying benefits; arbitrating issues of
liability and amount of reimbursement.
(1) Except as provided in ORS 742.544, every authorized motor vehicle liability
insurer whose insured is or would be held legally liable for damages for
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident by a person for whom personal
injury protection benefits have been furnished by another such insurer, or for
whom benefits have been furnished by an authorized health insurer, shall
reimburse such other insurer for the benefits it has so furnished if it has
requested such reimbursement, has not given notice as provided in ORS 742.536
that it elects recovery by lien in accordance with that section and is entitled
to reimbursement under this section by the terms of its policy. Reimbursement
under this subsection, together with the amount paid to injured persons by the
liability insurer, shall not exceed the limits of the policy issued by the
insurer.
(2) In
calculating such reimbursement, the amount of benefits so furnished shall be
diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person
for whom benefits have been so furnished, and the reimbursement shall not
exceed the amount of damages legally recoverable by the person.
(3) Disputes
between insurers as to such issues of liability and the amount of reimbursement
required by this section shall be decided by arbitration.
(4) Findings and
awards made in such an arbitration proceeding are not admissible in any action
at law or suit in equity.
(5) If an insurer
does not request reimbursement under this section for recovery of personal
injury protection payments, then the insurer may only recover personal injury
protection payments under the provisions of ORS 742.536 or 742.538. [Formerly
743.825; 1993 c.709 §7; 2007 c.392 §1]
Notes of Decisions
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Hale, 168 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 32× “In July 2003, plaintiff made a demand on Farmers, pursuant to the interinsurer reimbursement provisions of ORS 742.534, 2 for reimbursement of the PIP benefits it had paid to defendant.”
Gaucin v. Farmers Ins., 146 P.3d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 20× “Plaintiff explains that three other statutes, ORS 742.534, ORS 742.536, and ORS 742.538, are the only sources of authorization for PIP reimbursement.”
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 34× “Defendant argues, as she did before the trial court, that three statutory provisions, ORS 742.534, ORS 742.536, and ORS 742.538, provide methods for insurers to seek reimbursement of their expenditures and that those provisions preempt any language in defendant’s policy with…”
Garrett v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 829 P.2d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 8× “The trial court concluded that, because the insurance policy did not entitle defendant to direct reimbursement under ORS 742.534 from the tortfeasor’s insurer, defendant was required to pay a share of the litigation costs incurred by plaintiff under ORS 742.”
Cavanaugh Ex Rel. Cavanaugh v. Providence Health Plan, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Or. 2010).
· cites it 14× “On August 16, 2007, Defendant sent a letter to the third party’s insurance company in which Defendant advised: As you know, ORS 742.534 requires an authorized motor vehicle liability insurer, whose insured is or would be held legally liable for damages to reimburse the health…”
Carrigan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 949 P.2d 705 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 2× “[8] Defendant argues that three other PIP provisions, ORS 742.534, 742.536, and 743.538, support its interpretation, because they pertain to injuries sustained "in a motor vehicle accident.”
Barackman v. Anderson, 109 P.3d 370 (Or. 2005).
“See ORS 742.534(4) (findings and awards made in arbitration proceedings between insurers “are not admissible in any action at law or suit in equity’).”
Wynia v. Fick, 986 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “538, a PIP provider’s right to recover PIP benefits is covered by ORS 742.534 and ORS 742.536. 3 Under those three statutes, a PIP provider has four *370 methods through which to recover benefits that it has paid.”
Babb v. Mid-Century Ins., 821 P.2d 424 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “4 In addition to the interinsurer reimbursement provision of ORS 742.534, there are two other ways an insurer who pays PIP benefits can seek to recover that *71 payment.”
Hughes v. City of Portland, 296 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 15× “Under ORS 742.534, a“motor vehicle liability insurer whose insured is or would be held legally liable for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident” must reimburse another insurer who furnished PIP benefits to the injured person if the PIP insurer requests…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.534(1) — 12 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Hale, 168 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“In July 2003, plaintiff made a demand on Farmers, pursuant to the interinsurer reimbursement provisions of ORS 742.534, 2 for reimbursement of the PIP benefits it had paid to defendant.”
Babb v. Mid-Century Ins., 821 P.2d 424 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“4 In addition to the interinsurer reimbursement provision of ORS 742.534, there are two other ways an insurer who pays PIP benefits can seek to recover that *71 payment.”
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Defendant argues, as she did before the trial court, that three statutory provisions, ORS 742.534, ORS 742.536, and ORS 742.538, provide methods for insurers to seek reimbursement of their expenditures and that those provisions preempt any language in defendant’s policy with…”
Garrett v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 829 P.2d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“The trial court concluded that, because the insurance policy did not entitle defendant to direct reimbursement under ORS 742.534 from the tortfeasor’s insurer, defendant was required to pay a share of the litigation costs incurred by plaintiff under ORS 742.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.534(3) — 4 cases
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Defendant argues, as she did before the trial court, that three statutory provisions, ORS 742.534, ORS 742.536, and ORS 742.538, provide methods for insurers to seek reimbursement of their expenditures and that those provisions preempt any language in defendant’s policy with…”
Hughes v. City of Portland, 296 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Under ORS 742.534, a“motor vehicle liability insurer whose insured is or would be held legally liable for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident” must reimburse another insurer who furnished PIP benefits to the injured person if the PIP insurer requests…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.534(4) — 2 cases
Barackman v. Anderson, 109 P.3d 370 (Or. 2005).
“See ORS 742.534(4) (findings and awards made in arbitration proceedings between insurers “are not admissible in any action at law or suit in equity’).”
Hughes v. City of Portland, 296 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Under ORS 742.534, a“motor vehicle liability insurer whose insured is or would be held legally liable for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident” must reimburse another insurer who furnished PIP benefits to the injured person if the PIP insurer requests…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.534(l) — 1 case
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.