|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Brownstone Homes Condominium Association v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LLC|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Thomas W. Brown, on behalf of Brownstone Homes Condominium Association|
Gregory L. Baird, on behalf of Capitol Specialty Insurance Co.
Statement of Issues:
|Brownstone Homes Condominium Association v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LLC (S061273) (A145740) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 255 Or App 390, 298 P3d 1228 (2013)).|
Petitioner Brownstone Homes Condominium Association has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the trial court's determination that petitioner, as assignee of defendant A&T Siding, Inc., was not entitled to garnish the proceeds of an insurance policy issued by A&T's insurer, Capitol Specialty Insurance Co.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Does the holding of Stubblefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, 267 Or 397, 517 P2d 262 (1973) -- through the holding of State Farm Fire and Cas. v. Reuter, 299 Or 155, 700 P2d 236 (1985) -- apply to a garnishment action under ORS 18.352?
(2) Does ORS 31.825, which relates to the assignment of causes of action against an insurer, require that a judgment debtor's assignment of a claim against its liability insurer that caused the judgment to be entered be agreed to or otherwise effective only after entry of the judgment?
(3) If the Court of Appeals correctly construed ORS 18.352 and 31.825, should this court overruled Stubblefield and hold that, notwithstanding an unconditional covenant not to execute, if a liability insurer breaches its duty to defend and the insured, acting in its own defense, reasonably settles the claim, the insurer is liable for the amount of the settlement (up to policy limits) if the judgment made part of the settlement was otherwise covered under the insurance policy?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: