Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
• Date Filed: 07-22-2015
• Case #: A150983
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Wilson, S.J. for the Court; Nakamoto, P.J.; & Egan, J.

The plaintiff should be allowed the opportunity by the court to present evidence as to whether the motorist was underinsured.

Thoens was in a car accident, which led to medical treatment. Thoens settled with the person who rear-ended her, but her medical bills exceeded the amount. She then sought coverage from her insurance for personal injury protection (PIP) and underinsured motorist benefits (UIM). SafeCo refused to pay. The trial court held for Thoens for PIP and for SafeCo for UIM. Thoens appealed making four assignments of error. The Court concluded that the trial court erred in "excluding evidence that would have allowed the jury to determine that the drive who rear-ended plaintiff was 'underinsured.'" Judgment on claim for UIM benefits reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

Share Subscribe