Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange

When a word or phrase is not defined in an insurance policy, the court will seek out plausible interpretations; should multiple plausible interpretations exist, "any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the word or phrase will be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 423, 395 P3d 892 (2017).

Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck) appealed a breach of contract claim brought by Bighorn Logging Corporation (Bighorn).  Truck assigned error to a summary judgment movement for Bighorn and the denial of Truck's cross-motion for summary judgment.  Truck argued that "it was not obligated under the insurance policy to defend or indemnify Bighorn for willful conduct causing timber trespass.  Bighorn argued that Truck had a duty to defend and indemnify it because the complaint alleged in negligent timber trespass and the final result was "reckless" trespass within the scope of the policy's coverage.  When a word or phrase is not defined in an insurance policy, the court will seek out plausible interpretations; should multiple plausible interpretations exist, "any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the word or phrase will be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Hunters Ridge Condo. Assn. v. Sherwood Crossing, 285 Or App 416, 423, 395 P3d 892 (2017).  The Court held that plausible interpretations were offered on the language of exclusions in the policy, and accordingly that ambiguities concerning potential insurance coverage are resolved in favor of the insured.  Affirmed.