Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Great Am. Ins. Co.

Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Great Am. Ins. Co.

Opinion

 [**149]   [*163]  DUNCAN, J.

This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between defendant Great American Insurance Company (Great American), an excess insurer, and plaintiff Portland School District (the district), the assignee of Great American's insured. Great American appeals a limited judgment in favor of the district, assigning error to the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment for the district and denial of its own motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the insured's excess insurance policy with Great American did not incorporate an anti-assignment provision contained in the insured's underlying policy and, consequently, that the district as assignee could prevail  [***2] on its claim for breach of contract against Great American. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

] In an appeal of a judgment resulting from cross-motions for summary judgment, where the defendant assigns error to both the denial of its motion and the granting of the plaintiff's motion, both are subject to review. Ellis v. Ferrellgas, L.P., 211 Ore. App. 648, 652, 156 P3d 136 (2007). Each moving party has the burden of demonstrating that there  [**150]  are no issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Eden Gate, Inc. v. D&L Excavating and Trucking, Inc., 178 Ore. App. 610, 622, 37 P3d 233 (2002). We review the record for each motion in the light most favorable to the party opposing that motion. Id.

Here, the district and Great American agree that there are no disputed issues of fact and that their opposing motions turn on issues of law, specifically, the interpretation of an insurance contract and the applicability of a statute, ORS 31.825. We summarize the facts from those stipulated by the parties for purposes of their cross-motions for summary judgment.

The district hired a roofing contractor to replace the roof of a school. The contractor was negligent  [***3] in its work, and, as a result, the roof caught fire. The contractor had a liability insurance contract (the underlying policy) with CNA Insurance Company (CNA), and an excess insurance contract  [*164]  (the excess policy) with Great American. ² The amount of damage to the school exceeded the limits of the underlying policy. The contractor timely submitted claims to both CNA and Great American for coverage under the policies; Great American denied coverage.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.