Oregon Court of Appeals Rules GEICO Must Cover Permissive Driver, Awards $50,000 in Attorney Fees
Won by Mayor Law.
After GEICO refused to pay PIP medical benefits to a driver operating an insured vehicle with the owner's permission, Travis Mayor won a Court of Appeals reversal that forced the insurer to pay $61,187 in benefits, fees, costs, and interest.
What happened
Robert Ma was driving a vehicle with the owner's permission when he was involved in a car accident in Oregon. He submitted a claim for personal injury protection benefits under the vehicle owner's GEICO Casualty Company policy to cover his collision-related medical expenses, which totaled just over $8,000. GEICO denied the claim, taking the position that permissive drivers were not entitled to PIP benefits under Oregon law.
The trial court sided with GEICO, leaving Ma without coverage for his medical costs despite having been lawfully behind the wheel with the owner's consent. Travis Mayor of Mayor Law appealed the decision, arguing that Oregon statutes require insurers to extend PIP benefits to any person permitted by the named insured to use the vehicle.
The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed. In its February 29, 2012 opinion, cited as 248 Or App 479, 273 P.3d 334, the court reversed the trial court and held that permissive drivers of insured vehicles are entitled to personal injury protection coverage as a matter of Oregon law. The ruling closed an interpretation gap that insurance companies had been using to deny PIP claims.
Because GEICO had wrongfully denied a meritorious PIP claim, the court also awarded attorney fees under ORS 742.061. The fee award came to $50,000. When the underlying medical expenses, court costs, interest, and the fee award were totaled, GEICO paid $61,187.49. The Oregon Supreme Court declined review, and the decision now stands as settled precedent on permissive-driver PIP coverage in the state.
Sources
This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.
Related car accident verdicts
On December 7, 2021, a Nueces County jury in Corpus Christi returned $1.04 billion in actual damages and $300 billion in exemplary damages, about $301.04 billion in total, against Beer Belly's Sports Bar and its owner for overserving a driver who killed Tamra Kay Kindred, 59, and her 16-year-old granddaughter in a 2017 crash. It was reported as the largest jury verdict ever recorded, and it was built to be symbolic: the bar had closed in 2019, Texas does not require bars to carry liquor liability insurance, and the family and its lawyers said openly that they expected to recover nothing and sought the number as a public statement against drunk driving. John Flood of Flood Trial Lawyers was lead counsel, with Sico, Hoelscher & Harris LLP as co-counsel; Craig Sico delivered the closing argument that asked jurors to decide how loudly their voice would be heard.
An Oakland County jury awarded $896.5 million to a young boy who was struck by a prototype test car during a student field trip at a Continental test track, reported as the largest verdict in Michigan history. The award is pre-appeal: post-trial motions are pending, Continental never made a settlement offer, and the amount could still be reduced.
A Bexar County jury awarded roughly $831 million to Blas Mendez Jr., a longtime Seguin ISD special education behavior specialist left partially paralyzed after his motorcycle hit wreckage left in the road by an 18-year-old drunk driver who had been served at Koozies Icehouse & Grill in New Braunfels. Todd A. Hunter of Hunter Trial Law tried the dram shop case with E. Chevo Pastrano and Ginna G. Pastrano of The Pastrano Law Firm. The award was reported as the largest verdict ever returned by a San Antonio jury, and the bar had already closed by the time it came in, so the family is not expected to collect most, if any, of it.
A Harris County jury awarded Mary Johnson $557 million against Union Pacific for a 2016 Houston train strike that cost her a leg, several fingers, and left her with a brain injury, a figure the trial court later cut and an appeals court reversed for a new trial.