ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Petitioners on Review, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor to Aetna Insurance Company; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London; Certain London Market Insurance Companies; General Insurance Company; and Westport Insurance Corporation, as Successor to Puritan Insurance Company, Respondents on Review, and CON-WAY, INC., as Successor to Consolidated Freightways, Inc., Respondent on Review, and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, fka Northbrook Insurance Company; et al., Defendants.ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Petitioners on Review, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor to Aetna Insurance Company; General Insurance Company; and Westport Insurance Corporation, as Successor to Puritan Insurance Company, Respondents on Review, and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London; Certain London Market Insurance Companies; Continental Casualty Company; Lexington Insurance Company; Northern Assurance Company of America, Respondents on Review, and CON-WAY, INC., as Successor to Consolidated Freightways, Inc., Respondent on Review, and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, fka Northbrook Insurance Company; et al. Defendants., 367 Ore. 711

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendant company had no legal authority to "self-insure" or to act as an insurer under Oregon or federal law; instead it was required to purchase and maintain insurance from insurers authorized to do business in Oregon; [2]-Side agreements between defendant and its insurers did not alter the insurers' duties to defend or pay for claims covered by those policies or the statutory or equitable contribution claims of other insurers, such as plaintiff, that paid damages or defense costs for the claims; [3]-Because the term "sudden, unexpected, and unintended" was ambiguous, cases supported plaintiff's argument that the term should be construed against the drafter and in favor of coverage.