Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co.

282 Or. 401 (Or. 1978)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co.

75 Citing cases

  1. American Home Assur. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.

    786 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1986)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Deciding case on other grounds, but stating: "The [trial] court noted that although a number of courts have held that intangible losses, such as loss of use or diminution of value, are `property damage', . . . all such decisions had interpreted policy language defining property damage as `injury to tangible property' rather than `physical injury to tangible property.' In cases in which courts have interpreted more recent policies in which property damage is defined as `physical' injury to tangible property, such courts have held that intangible damages, such as diminution in value, are not considered property damage", citing Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co., 282 Or. 401; Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Concrete Units, Inc., 363 N.W. 751, 757 (Minn. 1985)

    In cases in which courts have interpreted more recent policies in which property damage is defined as "physical" injury to tangible property, such courts have held that intangible damages, such as diminution in value, are not considered property damage. See, e.g., Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co., 282 Or. 401, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978); Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Concrete Units, Inc., 363 N.W. 751, 757 (Minn. 1985).

  2. Hillbro LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

    558 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Or. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Benjamin Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 793 F. Supp. 259, 263 (D. Or. 1990) )). Cf.Wy. Sawmills, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 406, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) (Including the word " ‘physical’ in the phrase ‘physical injury to ... tangible property’ ... negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include ‘consequential or intangible damage,’ such as depreciation in value, within the term ‘property damage.’ ").

  3. N. Pac. Mgmt. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    558 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (D. Or. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Benjamin Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 793 F. Supp. 259, 263 (D. Or. 1990) )). Cf. Wy.Sawmills, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 406, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) (Including the word " ‘physical’ in the phrase ‘physical injury to ... tangible property’ ... negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include ‘consequential or intangible damage,’ such as depreciation in value, within the term ‘property damage.’ ").

  4. Nari Suda LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

    558 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (D. Or. 2021)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    . Cf. Wy.Sawmills, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 406, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) (Including the word " ‘physical’ in the phrase ‘physical injury to ... tangible property’ ... negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include ‘consequential or intangible damage,’ such as depreciation in value, within the term ‘property damage.’ ").

  5. NUE, LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

    558 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (D. Or. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Benjamin Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 793 F. Supp. 259, 263 (D. Or. 1990) )). Cf. Wy.Sawmills, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 406, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) (Including the word " ‘physical’ in the phrase ‘physical injury to ... tangible property’ ... negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include ‘consequential or intangible damage,’ such as depreciation in value, within the term ‘property damage.’ ").

  6. Dakota Ventures, LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co.

    553 F. Supp. 3d 848 (D. Or. 2021)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that “direct physical loss of or damage to” property requires the insured “to lose of possession of its property or demonstrate a physical alteration in the condition of its property for coverage to apply”

    (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Benjamin Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 793 F. Supp. 259, 263 (D. Or. 1990) )). Cf. Wy.Sawmills, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 406, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) (Including the word " ‘physical’ in the phrase ‘physical injury to ... tangible property’ ... negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include ‘consequential or intangible damage,’ such as depreciation in value, within the term ‘property damage.’ ").

  7. James W. Fowler Co. v. QBE Ins. Corp.

    474 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (D. Or. 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Adopting Caldwell ’s reasoning to interpret a similar MBE

    QBE cannot rely on the isolated statement in Columbiaknit , made in a very different context, as authority for its sweeping proposition that "direct physical loss" requires physical damage in a circumstance such as this. QBE also cites Wyoming Sawmills v. Trans. Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978), which considered a policy covering property damage, defined as "physical injury to or destruction of tangible property." There, the Oregon Supreme Court held that "the inclusion of [the word "physical"] negates any possibility that the policy was intended to include "consequential or intangible damage," such as depreciation in value, within the term "property damage.

  8. FountainCourt Homeowners' Ass'n v. FountainCourt Development, LLC

    360 Or. 341 (Or. 2016)   Cited 25 times
    Concluding that a jury's finding that an insured subcontractor negligently damaged physical property gave rise to coverage under a policy that required proof of an "occurrence," which was also defined as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions"

    The gist of AFM's argument seems to be that, under Ferguson , 254 Or. at 510–11, 460 P.2d 342, the parties were not bound by the facts found by the jury in the underlying trial, and at most, FountainCourt established a mere possibility that the damages found by the jury were for “property damage” as defined in the insurance policies. In particular, AFM argues that the damages found by the jury in the underlying proceeding are not “property damage” as defined in the insurance policy, because the damages in the underlying proceeding could have included the costs of repairing “defective work” by Sideco, and “defective work” does not constitute property damage (citing Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co. , 282 Or. 401, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978) ). As explained above, Ferguson does not require a court resolving an insurance coverage issue to disregard the nature of the damage award in the underlying action.

  9. Dejonge v. Mutual of Enumclaw

    315 Or. 237 (Or. 1993)   Cited 20 times
    In DeJonge, this court held that estoppel could not be used to negate an unambiguous exclusion in a written policy of insurance when the insurer did not dissuade the insured from reading or understanding the exclusion.

    304 Or at 307. In Wyoming Sawmills v. Transportation Ins. Co., 282 Or. 401, 410, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978), this court had held that "the rule [precluding estoppel or waiver] must be limited to failure to assert an exclusion." Most jurisdictions have ruled that estoppel is not available to expand the coverage of a written policy so as to protect the insured against risks expressly excluded.

  10. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Trutanich

    123 Or. App. 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 64 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the saturation of an insured dwelling by methamphetamine fumes constituted a physical loss

    On the second point, Farmers relies on Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 282 Or. 401, 578 P.2d 1253 (1978). There, a lumber manufacturer sold a lumber company defective 2 X 4 studs that were used in a building.