Kachan v. Country Preferred Insurance

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-07-2016
  • Case #: A158554
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Garrett, J.; & Ortega, P.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Whether an insurer reasonably required an Examination Under Oath in order to disperse benefits to a policy-holder is a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to contest a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff appealed the grant of Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant had argued that Plaintiff was not entitled to receive insurance benefits under personal injury protection because Plaintiff had not consented to an Examination Under Oath (EUO) that the policy required. The Court held that whether the insurer reasonably required an EUO was a genuine issue of material fact and the motion for summary judgment was therefore improper. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search