Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.

── Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co. ── Court: Oregon Supreme Court Date: May 14, 2026 Author: DeeHoog Category: General 262 May 14, 2026 No. 25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Kristina SHEPPARD, Petitioner on Review, v. PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Respondent on Review, and Eric McHENRY and State of Oregon, Defendants. (CC 20CV28039) (CA A178724) (SC S071187) En Banc On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted April 17, 2025. Derek Larwick, Larwick Law Firm, PC, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review. Jonathan Henderson, Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. Also on the briefs was Christopher J. Drotzmann. David E. Smith, Spooner Staggs Trial Lawyers, Salem, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. Brian C. Hickman, Gordon & Polscer, L.L.C., Tigard, filed the brief for amicus curiae American Property Casualty Insurance Association. DeHOOG, J. ______________ * Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, James C. Edmonds, Judge. 333 Or App 39, 551 P3d 967 (2024). Cite as 375 Or 262 (2026) 263 The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. 264 Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co. DeHOOG, J. Under Oregon law, automobile liability policies must provide insured motorists with coverage for, among other things, bodily injury or death resulting from acci- dents caused by uninsured or underinsured motorists. See ORS 742.504 (uninsured motorist coverage); ORS 742.502 (underinsured motorist coverage). However, coverage is not required for bodily injuries an insured suffers while “occu- pying a vehicle * * * furnished for the regular use of[ ] the named insured[.]” ORS 742.504(4)(b). Plaintiff was injured by another motorist while plaintiff was driving a vehicle that her employer had provided for her work-related use. Plaintiff’s damages exceeded the combined limits of the other motorist’s and her employer’s insurance policies, so she sought underinsured motorist coverage from her own insurer, defendant in this case. Defendant denied plain- tiff’s claim. It asserted that plaintiff was not entitled to coverage, because, in its view, the vehicle she was driv- ing at the time of the accident had been “furnished for [her] regular use.” Plaintiff sued to recover those bene- fits, but, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judg- ment, the trial court agreed with defendant. The court therefore granted defendant’s motion, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion, and dismissed plaintiff’s claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 333 Or App 39, 551 P3d 967 (2024) (holding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff’s employer had furnished work vehicle for her regular use). On review, we conclude that disputed issues of fact in this case preclude the determination that, as a matter of law, the vehicle that plaintiff was driving had been “furnished for [her] regular use” within the mean- ing of ORS 742.504(4)(b); the trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. We further conclude, however, that plaintiff also has not shown that she, instead, was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand to that court for further proceedings. Cite as 375 Or 262 (2026) 265 I. BACKGROUND A. Legal and Procedural Posture This case involves two aspects of a typical automo