Summit Real Estate Management v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.

“If there is more than one plausible interpretation [of an insurance policy], we examine the word or phrase in the context in which it is used in the policy and the broader context of the policy as a whole.” Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 295 Or App , 828-29, 437 P3d 287 (2019).

Petitioner appealed from a grant of summary judgment. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s interpretation of Petitioner’s insurance policy as applying a temporal limit to claims for employee dishonesty. On appeal, Petitioner argued that a phrase in the policy which stated that Respondent “would provide coverage without interruption at the end of each policy period” meant that there was no time limit to submit claims as long as Respondent continued to renew from year to year. In response, Respondent argued that the phrase “prior insurance” meant only the prior year’s insurance period, thus placing a time limit on the ability to submit claims. “If there is more than one plausible interpretation [of an insurance policy], we examine the word or phrase in the context in which it is used in the policy and the broader context of the policy as a whole.” Bighorn Logging Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 295 Or App, 828-29, 437 P3d 287 (2019). The Court held that Petitioner’s interpretation of the policy requiring claims to be covered so long as the policy was renewed would result in the term “prior insurance” being inapplicable, thus, the phrase “prior insurance” must refer to the previous year’s insurance period. Affirmed.