explaining that “the statute could not deprive” the party that did not choose to invoke the statutorily mandated appraisal process “of the right to jury trial”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “the statute could not deprive” the party that did not choose to invoke the statutorily mandated appraisal process “of the right to jury trial”
- construing ORS 742.504(10) not to compel arbitration by unwilling party and not to violate right to jury trial
- holding that an unwilling UM or UIM claimant or insurer cannot be required to arbitrate the claim but rather can demand a jury trial
- notwithstanding the arbitration provisions of former ORS 742.504(10) (1993), an unwilling uninsured motorist (UM) or UIM claimant or insurer cannot be required to arbitrate the claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 132 Or. App. 349 (1995)
She argues, variously, that: (1) Carrier v. Hicks, supra, is inapplicable to her workers’ compensation recovery; (2) Norpac failed to establish that Bird’s personal injury claim was a “covered claim” under the OIGA statutes; and (3) the satisfaction procedure invoked by Norpac was not available under the circumstances.
The opinion
*366 UNIS, J.,
dissenting.
I join in the dissenting opinion of Justice Fadeley.
The legislature provided in ORS 734.640(1) that plaintiff must exhaust his remedies under other insurance policies before pursuing a claim under Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association (OIGA). Exhausting a remedy means that a claim is pursued to its final conclusion, without respect to the ultimate result. If the legislature had intended that plaintiff must exhaust the limits of the uninsured motorist coverage of his insurance policy before pursuing a claim under OIGA, the legislature would have said so.