Sheptow v. Geico General Ins. Co., 246 OrApp 18 (2011)

Holding:   With limited exceptions, people who use an insured motor vehicle with consent of the insured are entitled to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits.

1)   “In interpreting statutes, out task is to attempt to discern the intent of the legislature. citing State v. Gaines. We begin by considering the text and context of the statute. Id. We then turn to any pertinent legislative history that the parties have offered and, if necessary, applicable cannons of construction. Id.” at p. 22.

2)   Neither the Court’s prior interpretation of the PIP statute, at p. 23-25, nor the legislative history of that statute, at p. 24, ftn 6, are relevant here because both predate the amendment of the general insurance statute expanding the requirement for PIP coverage to permissive users.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!