Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542

Effect of personal injury protection benefits paid

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      742.542 Effect of personal injury protection benefits paid. Payment by a motor vehicle liability insurer of personal injury protection benefits for its own insured shall be applied in reduction of the amount of damages that the insured may be entitled to recover from the insurer under uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for the same accident but may not be applied in reduction of the uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage policy limits. [Formerly 743.835; 1997 c.808 §10]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Farmers Insurance v. Conner
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farmers Insurance v. Conner (2008) orctapp · cites it 40× “1 Given Conner’s concession, and in the interest *340 of judicial economy, we are willing to address the question that we declined to reach in our original opinion: Does ORS 742.542 limit the reimbursement of PIP benefits in this case? We answer that question in the affirmative…”
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) or · cites it 4× “For example, PIP benefits include loss of income for those usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.542(1)(b), and loss of essential services for those who are not usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.”
Gaucin v. Farmers Insurance (2006) orctapp · cites it 11× “That the effect of PIP money paid by Defendant falls under the statutory set-off scheme set out in ORS 742.542;[ 2 ] and “c. That the reimbursement scheme of ORS 742.”
North Pacific Insurance v. Hamilton (1998) orctapp · cites it 10× “NOTES [1] North Pacific cites ORS 742.542 in support of its argument that the word "reimbursement" controls the meaning of ORS 742.”
Spearman v. Progressive Classic Insurance (2016) orctapp · cites it 2× “” If plaintiff had not chosen to fashion his claim in that way, ORS 742.542 would have accomplished the same result, in light of the modest damages determined, because those PIP benefits would have served as a prepayment, credit, or offset against UM damages.”
Yokum v. Farmers Insurance (1993) orctapp · cites it 5× “Plaintiff argues that allowing insurers to reduce UIM limits by the amount recovered from a tortfeasor’s insurer, when part of that recovery is used to satisfy a lien for PIP payments, will defeat the plain language of ORS 742.542, which provides: “Payment by a motor vehicle…”
Zimmerman v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance (2013) or “ORS 742.542. With this information about the nature of UIM coverage in mind, we turn to the sufficiency of Zimmerman’s December 2006 accident report to constitute a proof of loss for a UIM claim.”
Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Conner (2007) orctapp · cites it 20× “Instead, he contended, ORS 742.542 applies to that circumstance.”
Koenig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2021) orctapp · cites it 6× “Addressing that concern, State Farm underscored that it claimed an offset for PIP payments against damages pursuant to ORS 742.542. The court com- mented, “The offset happens post-trial with these PIP pay- ments.”
Garrett v. State Farm Mutual Insurance (1992) orctapp “520 through ORS 742.542. Contracts of insurance are like other written contracts in that the intention of the *544 parties controls and when the language is plain and unambiguous, the intention of the parties is determined by the policy language.”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hale (2007) orctapp “544 was enacted (as now), ORS 742.542 provided that an insured’s claim for UM could be reduced by the amount of PIP recovery, but where the insured’s damages exceed the sum of UM and PIP, the PIP insured could ‘stack’ the benefits in order to make a fuller recovery.”
Babb v. Mid-Century Insurance (1991) orctapp · cites it 2× “520 to ORS 742.542. It would be illogical to read “shall” as meaning “may” and create a result that is inconsistent with the PIP scheme.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542(1)(b) — 2 cases
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) or “For example, PIP benefits include loss of income for those usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.542(1)(b), and loss of essential services for those who are not usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.”
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. (2017) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542(1)(c) — 2 cases
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) or “For example, PIP benefits include loss of income for those usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.542(1)(b), and loss of essential services for those who are not usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.”
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. (2017) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542(2)(a) — 1 case
Humbert v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (2020) ord
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542(l)(b) — 1 case
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) or “For example, PIP benefits include loss of income for those usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.542(1)(b), and loss of essential services for those who are not usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.542(l)(c) — 1 case
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. (2017) or “For example, PIP benefits include loss of income for those usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.542(1)(b), and loss of essential services for those who are not usually engaged in a remunerative occu- pation, ORS 742.”
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.