Personal injury protection benefits for motor vehicle liability policies
- applicability
Source:
Section 742.520 — Personal injury protection benefits for motor vehicle liability policies; applicability, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors742.html.
Notes of Decisions
Insurance policy clause required by this section, providing for payment of 70 percent of injured person’s lost wages during period of disability, was inapplicable where injured person was killed instantaneously, because there was no period of “disability” within meaning of policy. Perez v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 43 Or App 19, 602 P2d 284 (1979), aff’d 289 Or 295, 613 P2d 23 (1980)
Where liability policy issued to plaintiff’s father covered private passenger vehicle registered to father, fact that plaintiff was injured riding motorcycle did not disqualify him from PIP coverage. Garrow v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 40 Or App 23, 594 P2d 415 (1979), aff’d 288 Or 215, 603 P2d 1175 (1979)
Where, at time of accident, insured father’s married son and his wife and child were living in father’s house and paying $100 per month room and board, son was member of father’s family, residing in father’s household as required for coverage under this section. Garrow v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 40 Or App 23, 594 P2d 415 (1979), aff’d 288 Or 215, 603 P2d 1175 (1979)
Language of this section and [former] ORS 743.805 indicates that legislature was aware of family exclusion provision and chose to regulate it only to limited extent. State Farm v. Baughman, 57 Or App 576, 646 P2d 102 (1982)
Under definitions of “pedestrian” and “occupying” of this section, defendant who was ejected from car, rendered immobile and struck by plaintiff’s insured, was “pedestrian.” State Farm Ins. v. Berg, 70 Or App 410, 689 P2d 959 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Where passenger was occupying motor vehicle insured as temporary substitute vehicle in driver’s policy, personal injury protection benefits afforded to passenger under driver’s liability policy while passenger was riding in her own vehicle were primary insurance, while personal injury protection benefits afforded to passenger under her own broad form named operator policy were excess insurance. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 300 Or 564, 715 P2d 1112 (1986)
ORS 12.155, which requires person making advance payment before determining tort liability to give written notice of when applicable statute of limitations will run, is not applicable to Personal Injury Protection payments made under this section. Smith v. Riker, 88 Or App 579, 746 P2d 247 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Breach of good faith duty to pre-authorize treatment is denial of benefits subject to mandatory arbitration provision. Eggiman v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 134 Or App 381, 895 P2d 333 (1995)
Injury results from use of motor vehicle if injury is direct or indirect consequence or effect of motor vehicle use. Carrigan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 326 Or 97, 949 P2d 705 (1997)
Any person permitted by insured to use insured’s motor vehicle is entitled to personal injury protection benefits unless person is specifically excluded from such protection by law. Sheptow v. Geico General Insurance Co., 246 Or App 18, 265 P3d 4 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney General Opinions
Use of PIP benefits for uninsured pedestrian eligible for medical assistance and covered under Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, (1982) Vol. 43, p 1
Law Review Citations
31 WLR 737 (1995)
Up to date