Jill Estes v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co

facts in that claimant’s case. Vega looked to the text of ORS 742.504: “Every

policy required to provide the coverage specified in ORS 742.502 shall provide

uninsured motorist coverage that in each instance is no less favorable in any

respect to the insured or the beneficiary than if the following provisions were set

forth in the policy.” ORS § 742.504 (emphasis added); see Vega, 918 P.2d at

99–100. ORS 742.504(2)(c)’s definition of “[i]nsured,” in pertinent part, is “[t]he

3 named insured as stated in the policy.” ORS 742.502 created only a duty to

provide coverage to Estes that was no less favorable to him than the statutory

minimum.

Additionally, plaintiff argues that the GMC truck was not provided for

Estes’ regular use as a matter of fact, and thus the UIM exclusion does not apply.

The GMC truck Estes was driving was furnished by his employer. It was regularly

parked in his driveway when not in use, Estes was permitted to use the truck for

business matters, and he was also permitted to use it for personal matters that did

not disrupt his work. That Estes had the ability to use the truck for both business

purposes and personal matters is dispositive under…