Effect of advance payment
- payment as satisfaction of judgment
Source:
Section 31.555 — Effect of advance payment; payment as satisfaction of judgment, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors031.html.
Notes of Decisions
Because 1) insurer’s policy commits it to pay whatever its insured becomes liable to pay up to policy limits, 2) before judgment, reimbursement of PIP carrier is not in law payment of insured’s liability, and 3) amount that will be applicable to judgment may not yet be known, insurer is not entitled to pre-judgment credit for reimbursement. Kessler v. Weigandt, 68 Or App 180, 685 P2d 425 (1984), aff’d 299 Or 38, 699 P2d 183 (1985)
Where it could not be determined whether jury awarded damages already compensated for by PIP payments, reduction of offset allowed for PIP payments was improper. Dougherty v. Gelco Express Corp., 79 Or App 490, 719 P2d 906 (1986)
PIP payment to plaintiff does not reduce judgment where it can be determined jury did not award damages for losses compensated for by PIP payment. Brus v. Goodell, 119 Or App 74, 849 P2d 562 (1993)
Where affidavit by attorney for insurer merely acknowledged propriety of reimbursement procedure but did not obligate insurer to pay specific amount, refusal by court to issue order of partial satisfaction was proper. Heintz v. Baxter, 120 Or App 603, 853 P2d 320 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Liability insurer repayment to other insurer for amount of Personal Injury Protection payment advanced by other insurer is reduction in judgment amount having priority over attorney lien on judgment. Willhite v. Biff’s Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 124 Or App 360, 862 P2d 580 (1993)
Reduction of judgment by offsetting advance payments received from insurer must be done after judgment has been entered for unreduced amount of verdict. Wade v. Mahler, 167 Or App 350, 1 P3d 485 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Payments made without consideration of liability for damages are not “advance payments” triggering tolling of statute of limitations. Meoli v. Brown, 200 Or App 44, 114 P3d 507 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Statement that request to apply personal injury protection reimbursement payment “may be submitted by insurer” does not render, for purposes of this statute, requirements of ORCP 68C (4) equivocal. Medean v. Moeller, 246 Or App 717, 268 P3d 623 (2011)
Up to date