Compaby is a project of Free Law Projecta federally-recognized c 3 non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. Donate Now. Sign In Register. Filed: March 27th, Precedential Status: Precedential. Citations: P. Docket Number: Unknown. Panel: Arno H. DeneckeAlfred T.

GoodwinRalph M. HolmanWilliam M. McAllisterWilliam C. PerryGordon Sloan. Judges: Perry, C. Kenneth E. Roberts, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Ridgway K. Arthur Thomas Cavanaugh, Portland, argued the cause for respondent.

This is an action Langford Property Company an insurance company to recover against two other insurance companies pro-rata contribution toward the settlement of one claim and the satisfaction of judgment in another claim arising out of an automobile accident for which the respective insurers Ssfeco alleged to have provided multiple coverage.

Safeco appeals from a judgment requiring contribution. Oregon Automobile Ins. The stipulated facts are that Dameron, Safeco's insured, was operating an automobile owned by Peay on March 5,with Peay's permission. Peay was a named insured under a policy written by Oregon Farm Sabra Company, which policy described Peay's automobile.

Dameron's coverage with Safeco was provided under an omnibus clause in a policy written for Dameron's father. Immediately after the accident, Peay notified Oregon Farm Bureau and a routine investigation followed. During the investigation, which included Safeco Insurance Company Of Oregon with Dameron and others, there is no record that Oregon Farm Bureau ever inquired into the possibility that other insurance might have covered any of the parties potentially liable for the harm caused by Dameron's use of Peay's automobile.

Oregon Farm Bureau settled one claim "out of court," but Peay and Dameron were eventually served with summons and complaint in an action brought by a second victim of the accident.

When Oregon Farm Bureau, on March 9,received the documents which commenced the action against Peay and Dameron Oregon Farm Bureau for the first time gave notice to Safeco that an accident involving a Safeco insured had occurred, and that claims were being made against Dameron. Oregon Farm Bureau then and there tendered the defense of the action to Safeco, and Safeco refused to participate in any manner in the proceedings.

Safeco then cited as a reason for refusing to participate a clause in its policy providing that its insurance, when its insured was driving a non-owned automobile, was excess Comoany only.

When the present action was commenced, Safeco defended upon the additional ground that it had no valid and collectible insurance in force with respect to Dameron's accident because it had received no notice of the accident as required by the terms of its contract under which Dameron was alleged to be an insured.

The policy provided:. The purpose of the notice required by the usual automobile liability insurance contract is to permit the insurer, as quickly as possible, to discover all relevant facts and to make such management decisions as it deems proper in light of those facts.

While it is true that one insurance carrier received prompt notice of the accident and Safeco Insurance Company Of Oregon was able to deploy its forces for an investigation satisfactory to that carrier, that investigation Safwco not necessarily calculated to help another carrier make its decisions with reference to settlement efforts, strategy, reserves, or any of a variety of other matters that might be of interest to a claims department.

Reasonable notice to Safeco was a condition precedent to Safeco's liability to Dameron. See Hoffman v. Employer's Liability Assur. In the case at bar, there was no such excuse. Where one insurance company is demanding contribution from another, it is elementary that a right to contribution can rise no higher than OOf right of the alleged insured to compel his insurer to cover the loss.

Here, Inskrance failure to give Safeco reasonable notice was compounded by Oregon Farm Bureau's similar failure to give Safeco reasonable notice. Your Notes edit none. Cited By This case has not yet been cited in our system.

Authorities 2 This opinion cites: Lamb-Weston v. Employer's Liability Corp. Please support our work with a donation. Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc. Argued and Submitted March 5, Decided March 27, Here, Dameron's failure to give Safeco reasonable notice was Sqfeco by Oregon Virginia Sprinkler Company Bureau's similar failure to give Safeco reasonable notice Safeco Insurance Company Of Oregon.

Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements.

Home Insurance in Oregon 855-998-4759 Safeco Insurance

Safeco has provided Oregonians with peace of mind for years by offering affordable options for homeowners and renters insurance policies. If you're living in one of the 38%* of homes that are rented or 61%* of owned homes in Oregon, you deserve the security that comes with reliable home insurance coverage—and Safeco may have just what you need.…

Insurer Licensing Information Safeco Insurance

Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon (NAIC #11071) is domiciled at One Liberty Centre, 650 N.E. Holladay Street, Portland, Oregon 97232 and licensed in Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington. Safeco Lloyds Insurance Company (NAIC #11070) is domiciled at 1600 North Collins Boulevard, Richardson, Texas 75080 and licensed only in Texas.…