Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Woosley v. Transamerica Premier Insurance
Citations: 112 Or. App. 93; 826 P.2d 1054; 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 480Docket: 89C-11131; CA A66879
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; March 10, 1992; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Defendant appeals a judgment favoring the plaintiff, arguing that the trial court wrongly denied its motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court reviews evidence in favor of the plaintiffs and will reverse only if no evidence supports the verdict. Plaintiffs, who reside in a mobile home in Aumsville, held an insurance policy that covered personal effects up to $6,400, with specific provisions for items located within the mobile home or adjacent structures. Additional coverage applies for losses outside the premises due to fire or theft, capped at 10% of the comprehensive coverage amount. Following a theft and subsequent fire at a new location in Turner, plaintiffs claimed full compensation for their losses. Defendant sought a directed verdict, asserting coverage was limited to 10% based on policy terms. The trial court denied this motion, suggesting the plaintiffs’ reasons for not relocating the trailer were reasonable. The jury awarded plaintiffs $12,718.82. The key legal issue is whether the insurance policy's language limits coverage to 10% for losses occurring in Turner. The court determined that since the losses did not occur in the Aumsville mobile home or an adjacent structure on that premises, they were not covered under the policy. The pole barn, located in Turner, did not qualify as an adjacent structure as it was on non-adjoining premises in a different city. Therefore, neither loss was covered under the policy’s provisions. Plaintiffs assert that the policy's Location provision offers coverage during their mobile home relocation. The provision states that coverage applies to the mobile home and adjacent structures anywhere in the U.S. or Canada, and requires notification within 30 days of moving. They interpret this as granting comprehensive off-site coverage for personal effects during relocation. However, the policy explicitly conditions that personal effects coverage is subject to all policy terms. The relevant coverage for personal effects is found only in the Comprehensive Personal Effects Coverage and the Extension of Personal Effects Coverage sections. The plaintiffs lack coverage for losses in Turner under the Comprehensive section and are limited to 10% coverage under the Extension section, which the defendant has already paid. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for further claims, and the trial court's denial of the defendant's directed verdict motion was incorrect. The judgment for the defendant is to be entered upon remand.