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)

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 (2008)

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)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2008)

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

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 253 (2008)

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 (2008)

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