an insured should receive, but instead contest whether they owe the insured any damages at all. Plaintiff concedes that an insurer does not expose itself to attorney fees by contesting the liability of an uninsured or underinsured motorist, but contends that the insurer may be required to pay attorney fees if it raises an affirmative defense that, for some other reason, could result in a determination that the insurer owes no damages at all to the insured. Defendant disagrees that this court’s ruling in Grisby may be extended to UM/UIM proceedings. Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erroneously has equated the phrase “the damages due the insured” in ORS 742.061(3)(a) with the phrase “the amount of benefits due the insured” in ORS 742.061(2)(a). See Cardenas, 230 Or App at 412 (<HOLDING>). PIP benefits, defendant asserts, are
holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that if an insurance company is as a matter of state law liable to a plaintiff in the personal injury action subsequent discharge of the assured in bankruptcy does not alter the obligation of the insurance company and further finding that it is the policy of the law to discharge the bankrupt but not to release from liabilities those who are liable with him holding that defendant insurance company could not be held liable in negligence to a plaintiff for failure to disclose the insureds medical condition where defendant insurance company had not assumed a professional and expert position with respect to the insureds physical condition holding defendant insurance company ineligible for safe harbor in um case because defendant asserted that release agreement barred further recovery by plaintiff