Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in Thoens v. Safeco Ins. Co., 317 Or. App. 727, 507 P.3d 284 (2022). Although we adhere to our disposition of the case, we allow reconsideration and modify the text of our prior opinion to address defendants contention that our ruling on defendants second assignment of error was “based on a misunderstanding of defendants argument.”
1
Specifically, we add the below text as a footnote, placed at the end of the partial paragraph at id. at 744, 507 P.3d 284, following the text, “defendant cites no law that supports its point”:
“To the extent that defendant is instead arguing that the referees statutory fee award was unreasonable as a matter of law because it was based on a lodestar calculation instead of a percent-of-recovery calculation, we also reject that argument. As we explained above, defendant cites no support for its contention that a lodestar-based statutory fee award is inherently unreasonable where the prevailing plaintiffs contingent fee agreement also entitles her attorneys to all court-awarded fees. Again, we find no authority for that contention either. And, as we will explain, the courts fee award was reasonable and supported by the evidence.”
As described in the above modifications, we adhere to our previous disposition.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Defendant also asks that we reconsider our conclusion, related to defendants second assignment of error, that the evidence supported the referees fee award, because, defendant argues, our ruling was based on “a misunderstanding of the evidence.” We decline to reconsider that aspect of our decision.
PER CURIAM