Chapter 806

 

      Chapter 806

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statutes (ORS chapter 486)

 

      When a driver is involved in an accident that otherwise brings him within the purview of this chapter, he must thereafter file proof of future responsibility regardless of whether or not there is a reasonable possibility he was in any degree at fault in the accident. Boykin v. Ott, 10 Or App 210, 498 P2d 815 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, app. dis., 411 US 912, 36 L Ed 2d 304, 93 S Ct 1554

 

      This chapter was not unconstitutional as denying due process or equal protection of the laws under the U.S. Constitution. Boykin v. Ott, 10 Or App 210, 498 P2d 815 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, app. dis., 411 US 912, 36 L Ed 2d 304, 93 S Ct 1554

 

      This act does not require coverage for intentionally inflicted injuries or damages. Snyder v. Nelson/Leatherby Ins., 278 Or 409, 564 P2d 681 (1977)

 

      Intentional infliction of injury or damage occurs where injury or damage sustained was intended result of action. Snyder v. Nelson/Leatherby Ins., 278 Or 409, 564 P2d 681 (1977)

 

      Motor vehicle liability policy issued pursuant to Financial Responsibility Law must provide coverage for liability arising from physical injuries to relatives of insured who reside in insured’s household. Dowdy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 Or App 709, 685 P2d 444 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

 

In general

 

      Financial responsibility laws generally are to ensure that drivers can respond in damages for liability and especially to ensure that motor vehicle accident victims are compensated for injuries. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Jones, 306 Or 415, 759 P2d 271 (1988)

 

      Car insurance policy violated Financial Responsibility Law where it excluded liability coverage for permissive user’s injury of insured while driving insured’s car. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Jones, 306 Or 415, 759 P2d 271 (1988)

 

      Automobile insurance policy must cover not only named insured but also must provide coverage for all persons who operate insured vehicle with consent of insured. Viking Ins. Co. v. Petersen, 308 Or 616, 784 P2d 437 (1989)

 

      Where Financial Responsibility Law requires motor vehicle insurance policies to insure against all liability arising out of motor vehicle “ownership, operation, use or maintenance,” insurer’s named driver policy which insurer sold to insured in connection with insured’s vehicle must be construed as providing coverage by law and insurer is responsible for insured’s defense. Viking Ins. Co. v. Perotti, 308 Or 623, 784 P2d 1081 (1989)

 

      Family exclusion provision of policy is ineffective only as to statutorily required minimum amounts; insurer may limit additional coverage by any exclusion not otherwise prohibited by law. Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co., 312 Or 337, 822 P2d 1146 (1991); Farmers Insurance Co. v. Mowry, 350 Or 686, 261 P3d 1 (2011)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statutes (ORS chapter 486)

      Financial responsibility certification date and necessary information, (1978) Vol 38, p 1876

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

 

Under former similar statutes (ORS chapter 486)

      8 WLJ 77-84 (1972); 12 WLJ 406-412 (1976)

 

      806.010

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Operation of motor vehicle pursuant to trip permit issued by automobile dealer when mandatory financial responsibility provision has not been satisfied, (1978) Vol 39, p 346

 

      806.060

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Self-insurer is not subject to provision of ORS 806.130 requiring that coverage be supplied to all users of vehicle. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 128 Or App 516, 876 P2d 833 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2007)

 

      806.070

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Loss of consortium claim is one of legally cognizable damages resulting from injury to person and is not separate bodily injury resulting to claimant. Teply v. Ballard, 142 Or App 574, 922 P2d 1236 (1996)

 

      Where plaintiff was uninjured passenger in first vehicle involved in accident with second vehicle, then injured when third vehicle later struck first vehicle, number of accidents that occurred is question of fact decided by whether injuries resulted from initial event or cause only or whether initial event was interrupted by other events or causes. Wright v. Turner, 354 Or 815, 322 P3d 476 (2014)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2007)

 

      806.080

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Claim of negligent entrustment by owner of vehicle is claim arising out of ownership of insured vehicle and must be covered under this section. Viking Ins. Co. v. Petersen, 308 Or 616, 784 P2d 437 (1989)

 

      Policy provision excluding coverage for automobiles leased or rented by insured to others is void as contrary to law. Mathews v. Federated Service Ins. Co., 122 Or App 124, 857 P2d 852 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

 

      “Business use” exclusion in policy does not violate financial responsibility law because exclusion permissibly limits coverage that is in excess of that required by statute. United Services Automobile Assn. v. Reilly, 122 Or App 459, 858 P2d 457 (1993)

 

      Policies of one or more insurance carriers may be used together to fulfill requirements of insurance only where policies individually meet requirement that coverage include all persons using vehicle with consent of insured. Safeco Insurance Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co., 169 Or App 405, 9 P3d 749 (2000)

 

      “Use” of motor vehicle for which policy must provide coverage means act that employs or utilizes vehicle to person’s advantage. Trus Joist MacMillan v. John Deere Insurance Co., 171 Or App 476, 15 P3d 995 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Person identified as insured in motor vehicle insurance policy does not consent to use of vehicle where person instructs borrower of vehicle to not allow any other person to use vehicle and borrower allows third person to use vehicle. Laird v. Allstate Insurance Co., 232 Or App 162, 221 P3d 780 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Provision excepting persons excluded from coverage does not invalidate insurance policy that excludes from coverage one employee’s liability to another employee of same employer. Garrett v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 860 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Or. 2012)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2007)

 

      806.130

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Self-insurer is not subject to requirement that coverage be supplied to all users of vehicle. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc., 128 Or App 516, 876 P2d 833 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Self-insurer is not subject to ORS 742.450 provision specifying amount of uninsured motorist coverage to be provided by motor vehicle liability insurance policy. Thompson v. Estate of Adrian L. Pannell, 176 Or App 90, 29 P3d 1184 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2007)

 

      806.200

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Term “injury” in Financial Responsibility Law means any injury, however slight. Goble v. MVD, 53 Or App 534, 633 P2d 2 (1981)

 

      806.210

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Where late payment of insurance premium reinstated coverage it did not provide retroactive coverage to date of accident, so driver was not covered by insurance under this section. Brown v. MVD, 39 Or App 583, 592 P2d 1086 (1979)

 

      Term “injury” in Financial Responsibility Law means any injury, however slight. Goble v. MVD, 53 Or App 534, 633 P2d 2 (1981)

 

      806.270

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Insurer who failed to file financial responsibility notice of cancellation under this section was liable only for required statutory coverage and not for excess amount of lapsed policy. Oregon Automobile Ins. Co. v. Thorbeck, 283 Or 271, 583 P2d 543 (1978)

 

In general

 

      Insurance policy may cover only nonowned vehicles, and such policy need not cover after-acquired vehicles. Dixie Ins. Co. v. Quesenberry, 103 Or App 60, 795 P2d 1107 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Coverage where policyholder involved in accident misrepresented driving record, (1980) Vol 40, p 349