Between the Sheets by Nadia Dahab, Cody Hoesly and Elizabeth Savage, OTLA Guardians DECISIONS OF THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing claims brought by plaintiff who committed discovery violation by deleting text messages from her phone. Miner v. Safeco Ins. Co., 333 Or App 1 (2024); Shorr, J. The plaintiff was represented by Calvin Vance. An employer-provided vehicle is furnished for the insured’s regular use and, thus, excluded from uninsured motorist coverage, if the insured can use the vehicle whenever the insured wants, even if the insured can only use the vehicle for employment purposes. Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 333 Or App 39 (2024); Pagán, J. The plaintiff was represented by Derek Larwick. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle crash caused by an uninsured motorist (“UM”) while the plaintiff was in a vehicle provided by her employer, that she could and did use whenever she wanted, but she was allowed to use only for employment purposes. The plaintiff’s insurer denied her claim for UM coverage, so the plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy excluded coverage by providing that the plaintiff was not covered for an injury sustained while occupying a vehicle “furnished for …regular use.” See also ORS 742.504(4)(b) (statutory minimum coverage contains exclusion for vehicle “furnished for the regular use of” the insured). The plaintiff argued this “regular use” exclusion did not apply because her employer’s vehicle was available to her only for employment purposes. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining a vehicle is furnished for regular use if the insured can use it when the insured wants to, even if the vehicle is not totally under the insured’s control and is not available for both personal and business use. In so doing, the court adhered to North Pac. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 110 Or App 269 (1991). The statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers facts giving rise to their claim; as such, the limitations period is not tolled until the date the plaintiff discovers the scope of their injury. Clark v. Gilstrap, 332 Or App 720 (2024); Ortega, P. J. The plaintiff was represented by Jacob Johnstun. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision with defendant on October 21, 2019. For 15 months following the accident, the plaintiff suffered pain in her head, neck, and back, for which she received treatment. Nearly 16 months after the collision, the plaintiff underwent exploratory surgery which revealed the collision dislodged a surgically implanted pain pump, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the medication she needed to control her chronic pain. The plaintiff filed her complaint on March 23, 2022, more than two years after the collision took place. NADIA DAHAB specializes in appeals, civil rights, and general civil and class action litigation. She contributes to OTLA Guardians at the Guardians Club level. Dahab is a shareholder at Sugerman Dahab, 101 SW Main St., Ste. 910, Portland, OR 97204. She can be reached at [email protected] or 503-228-6474. CODY HOESLY specializes in appeals, financial fraud and commercial cases. A Co-chair of the OTLA Amicus Committee, he contributes to OTLA Guardians at the Guardians Club level. Hoesly is a shareholder at Barg Singer Hoesly PC, 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 600, Portland, OR 97204. He can be reached at 503-241-8521 or [email protected]. ELIZABETH SAVAGE specializes in appeals, personal injury and family law. She is co-chair of the OTLA Amicus Committee and contributes to the OTLA Guardians at the Sustaining level. Savage operates Elizabeth Savage Law, 7805 SW 40th Ave., #80278, Portland, OR, 97219. She can be reached at 971-430-4030 or [email protected]. 52 Trial Lawyer | Fall 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=