Smith v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Kelsey Smith and others were injured in a single-vehicle accident when youth pastor Jeremy Lynn Hascall (“Has-call”) fell asleep at the wheel and crashed Ashland Christian Fellowship’s van carrying fifteen passengers. The van was insured by a policy issued by Defendant GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company (“GuideOne”). Plaintiffs Jeffrey, Karen, and Kelsey Smith (“the Smiths”) sued Gui-deOne in this diversity action seeking un-derinsured motorist coverage. GuideOne appeals the district court’s summary judgment order finding that the Smiths are entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under the policy. GuideOne also appeals the district court’s order granting the Smiths attorneys’ fees, and the Smiths cross-appeal the attorneys’ fees award.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

(a)

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 825-26 (9th Cir.2007).

First, we find that Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Perkins, 344 Or. 196 , 179 P.3d 633 (2008), — decided after the district court entered its summary judgment order — is wholly distinguishable from the instant case.

Perkins…

dissenting:

Under Oregon law, every car insurance policy must include an endorsement providing uninsured-motorist coverage for accidents caused by an uninsured vehicle. *610 Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.502 (setting forth the scope of the required coverage). Not surprisingly, Oregon law does not require insurance companies to provide uninsured-motorist coverage when an insured vehicle gets into a one-car accident. Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.504. Indeed, section 742.504(2)(e) makes clear this is not required: It defines an “uninsured vehicle” as one that is not the insured vehicle. GuideOne’s insurance policy also did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for the one-car accident at issue here. Under section D.2.b of the policy, once the insurance company pays out the entire $1 million limit of the policy for an accident (as GuideOne did in this case), the company has no further obligation for that accident. Accordingly, Gui-deOne’s policy is not less favorable than the Oregon statute. See Vega v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Or., 323 Or. 291 , 918 P.2d 95, 100 (1996) (holding that an insurance company cannot provide uninsured-motorist coverage that is “less favorable to the insured” than that required…