# Carrier v. Hicks

> Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1993 · 316 Or. 341

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575655

## Case

- **Full name:** Timothy S. CARRIER, Respondent on Review, v. Wilbur and Fay HICKS, Dba Goble Tavern, Petitioners on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 21, 1993
- **Citations:** 316 Or. 341; 851 P.2d 581; 851 P.2d 851; 1993 Ore. LEXIS 59
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Unis
- **Judges:** Peterson, Fadeley, Unis
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575655

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- holding that an unwilling UM or UIM claimant or insurer cannot be required to arbitrate the claim but rather can demand a jury trial

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575655. Public record. Not legal advice.