124 Or. App. 183 - SAIF Corp. v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he Supreme Court has indicated that `[a]n insurer's failure to respond to a claim [as required by ORS 656.262(6) ] is neither acceptance [n]or denial.' Johnson v. Spectra Physics, 303 Or 49, 58 , 733 P2d 1367 (1987). The issue in that case was whether an insurer's inaction could be construed as acceptance of a claim. The conclusion that inaction does not constitute denial is therefore dictum. I question whether the Supreme Court really intended claimants to languish while insurers failed to obey the law that requires them to accept or deny claims in a timely fashion." Id. at 189 , 861 P.2d 1018 (emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Saif Corp. v. Allen

2. “"In my view, an insurer's failure to timely accept or deny a claim ought to be considered a denial, and that should entitle the claimant to attorney fees under ORS 656.386(1) * * *." Id. at 187, 861 P.2d 1018 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Saif Corp. v. Allen

3. “`where the only compensation issue on appeal is the amount of compensation or the extent of disability[,] * * * ORS 656.386(1) is not the applicable attorney fee statute.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saif Corp. v. Allen