The opinion
WARREN, P. J.,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Edmonds’ opinion and write only to address the argument made by the dissent that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Russell and Aetna. In my view the contract was strictly one in which Aetna settled with Russell and agreed to hold him harmless from any claims made by plaintiff to recover the cost of medical services provided to Russell. The contract provided that as between Russell and Aetna, “[Russell] agrees that, as between Aetna and the medical providers, Aetna is free to make whatever arrangements they [sic] wish with regard to settlement of the alleged bills.”
There is nothing in the language of the settlement with Russell that evinces an intent to do other than settle the case with Russell and to insulate him from plaintiffs claim. There is no evidence, nor does the writing itself justify an inference, that the parties intended to benefit plaintiff. On the contrary, it appears that Aetna expressly reserved the right to contest plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff was, at best, an incidental beneficiary of the agreement and not entitled to bring an action as a third-party beneficiary of Russell’s contract. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. OHSU, 310 Or 61, 65 , 793 P2d 320 (1990).