SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Plaintiff, v. COLIN MCPARTLAND, et al., Defendants., 536 F. Supp. 3d 777

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Oregon had the most significant relationship to the insurance contract at issue because the policy was an "Oregon Renter's Policy" purchased to insure a residence in Oregon and the place of performance and the location of the subject matter of the insurance contract were both located in Oregon; therefore, Oregon law applied to the coverage dispute, and the court was to look only to the four corners of the complaints in the underlying actions in determining whether those complaints triggered the insurer's duty to defend; [2]-The insurer was entitled to summary judgment with respect to coverage for the underlying plaintiffs' assault and battery claims and IIED claims arising from the alleged sexual assaults because the alleged assaults could not be considered "accidents" under Oregon law, were not "occurrences" within the meaning of the policy, and not entitled to coverage.