Western States Law Library › Oregon › Guide 23
Oregon Case Authority Library
Oregon statutes establish the framework, but appellate decisions explain how that framework actually operates. This library organizes 45 leading Oregon appellate authorities involving mandatory automobile coverage, policy interpretation, insurer duties, UM/UIM, stacking, PIP, comparative fault, damages, wrongful death and settlement.
A case citation is the beginning of research—not the end
Oregon's official statutory annotations are excellent finding aids, but even the Legislature warns researchers not to treat an annotation as a substitute for the opinion itself.
Four authorities requiring special 2026 attention
Current Supreme Court authority on the statutory UM/UIM exclusion for a vehicle “furnished for regular use.” The inquiry is factual and turns on the authorized scope and frequency of use; neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the record before the Court.
Current ORS 742.061 UM/UIM fee-safe-harbor authority. An insurer cannot say it accepts coverage while its pleadings simultaneously put insured compliance or other coverage conditions in dispute.
Upheld application of ORS 31.710's $500,000 wrongful-death noneconomic limitation on the particular award before the court.
Held the same statutory limitation unconstitutional as applied to the extraordinary $20 million noneconomic award before it because the reduced remedy was constitutionally inadequate.
A. Financial Responsibility & Mandatory Liability Coverage
Cases 01-06 · Guides 02, 03, 07, 13 and related liability-coverage analysis.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jones
306 Or 415 · 759 P2d 271 (1988)Oregon's Financial Responsibility Law is designed to assure that motorists can respond in damages and accident victims can obtain compensation. A policy could not eliminate statutorily required coverage for the permissive-use situation before the Court.
Viking Insurance Co. v. Petersen
308 Or 616 · 784 P2d 437 (1989)Mandatory automobile insurance must cover persons operating the insured vehicle with the insured's consent. The statutory coverage also reached the negligent-entrustment claim involved in the case.
Viking Insurance Co. v. Perotti
308 Or 623 · 784 P2d 1081 (1989)A policy sold in connection with the insured vehicle must be construed consistently with Oregon's statutory requirement of coverage arising from vehicle ownership, operation, use or maintenance.
Collins v. Farmers Insurance Co.
312 Or 337 · 822 P2d 1146 (1991)A family exclusion that conflicts with mandatory liability insurance is ineffective to the extent of Oregon's required minimum coverage; permissible restrictions can still operate above the statutory floor.
Farmers Insurance Co. v. Mowry
350 Or 686 · 261 P3d 1 (2011)Confirms the distinction between the compulsory statutory floor and additional contractual coverage above that floor. Exclusions that cannot defeat required minimum coverage may still affect excess contractual limits.
Mathews v. Federated Service Insurance Co.
122 Or App 124 · 857 P2d 852 (1993) · review deniedA policy exclusion for automobiles leased or rented by the insured to others was invalid where it conflicted with Oregon's mandatory automobile-coverage requirements.
B. Policy Interpretation, Defense, Agents & Claims Handling
Cases 07-14 · Guides 06, 07, 08, 09, 10 and 12.
Hoffman Construction Co. v. Fred S. James & Co.
313 Or 464 · 836 P2d 703 (1992)Foundational Oregon insurance-contract interpretation authority. Courts determine the parties' intent from policy text and context; unresolved ambiguity in insurance language is construed against the insurer that drafted it.
Ledford v. Gutoski
319 Or 397 · 877 P2d 80 (1994)The duty to defend generally is determined by comparing the complaint with the policy. A covered basis within the allegations can trigger the defense, while the duty to indemnify remains a distinct question based on the liability actually established.
Bresee Homes, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
353 Or 112 · 293 P3d 1036 (2012)Reinforces Oregon's separate treatment of defense and indemnity. Potential coverage can trigger the broader defense duty even though ultimate indemnification depends on the facts eventually established.
West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims
360 Or 650 · 385 P3d 1053 (2016)Modern four-corners duty-to-defend authority. Ambiguity in the allegations relevant to potential covered liability is resolved in favor of the insured.
Monsantofils v. Gacek Insurance Agency, Inc.
282 Or 3 · 576 P2d 789 (1978)Important Oregon insurance-agent authority arising from an automobile accident in which the claimant alleged negligent failure to procure uninsured-motorist coverage.
Farris v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
284 Or 453 · 587 P2d 1015 (1978)Foundational Oregon claims-handling authority. ORS 746.230 reaches settlement of claims against insureds as well as first-party claims, but the Insurance Code itself historically was not treated simply as creating a standalone private statutory damages action.
Goddard v. Farmers Insurance Co.
173 Or App 633 · 22 P3d 1224 (2001) · review deniedFailure to attempt settlement after an adverse excess judgment can support an insured's claim against the liability carrier. Important authority for excess-exposure and settlement-duty analysis.
Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union
371 Or 772 · 542 P3d 24 (2023)Important current claims-handling authority recognizing, in its life-insurance setting, that ORS 746.230 can supply a statutory standard for a negligence claim. Do not mechanically convert Moody into a general automobile bad-faith tort; analyze the claim, duty and subsequent authorities carefully.
C. UM/UIM, Stacking & First-Party Automobile Coverage
Cases 15-29 · Core authorities for Guides 04, 05, 06, 07, 09 and 22.
Progressive Universal Insurance Co. v. Voyles
337 Or App 381 · 563 P3d 371 (2025) · review deniedCurrent authority concerning written election of UM/UIM limits below bodily-injury liability limits. Oregon requires the statutory lower- limit election, but only a single signed writing is required and “a named insured” means any named insured under the statute.
Vega v. Farmers Insurance Co.
323 Or 291 · 918 P2d 95 (1996)Foundational statutory-model case. Policy UM/UIM terms are tested against the comprehensive statutory model, and variations may not leave the insured with coverage less favorable than Oregon requires.
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Colton
264 Or 210 · 504 P2d 1041 (1972)Leading phantom-vehicle authority. Corroboration must supplement, strengthen and confirm the injured claimant's testimony; it need not independently establish every element of the accident.
Carrier v. Hicks
316 Or 341 · 851 P2d 581 (1993)Oregon's statutory UM/UIM arbitration mechanism does not violate the jury-trial right because neither side is compelled to arbitrate the claim absent the required agreement.
Grijalva v. Safeco Insurance Co.
329 Or 36 · 985 P2d 784 (1999)In a single-limit setting, the UM/UIM offset concerns amounts paid from other sources on account of injury to the particular insured, rather than indiscriminately reducing one claimant's coverage by payments made for others.
VanWormer v. Farmers Insurance Co.
171 Or App 450 · 15 P3d 612 (2000)Interpreted “this coverage” in the statutory UM/UIM model as referring to coverage under the individual policy rather than automatically to aggregate coverage under several policies issued by the same carrier.
Bonds v. Farmers Insurance Co.
349 Or 152 · 240 P3d 1086 (2010)Formal institution of UM/UIM arbitration requires an express communication that the initiating party is beginning the arbitration process; earlier agreement to arbitrate upon a future contingency was not enough on the facts presented.
Paton v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
256 Or App 607 · 302 P3d 1204 (2013) · review deniedClarifies Bonds in a different record: an express consent to arbitration can constitute formal institution of the arbitration for Oregon's UM/UIM preservation rule.
Wright v. Turner
368 Or 207 · 489 P3d 102 (2021)In a two-accident setting, UM/UIM limit analysis depended on whether the insured's injuries were caused by one accident or both. The case is important when separate collision events may trigger separate coverage limits.
Batten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
368 Or 538 · 495 P3d 1222 (2021)Critical Oregon stacking case. Where the insured had multiple UM/UIM policies, a provision limiting liability to the single policy with the highest limit was unenforceable because it produced coverage less favorable than Oregon's statutory model.
Cantu v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co.
325 Or App 184 · 528 P3d 1187 (2023) · review deniedA policy definition excluding a motorcycle from the relevant UM/UIM vehicle coverage was less favorable than the statutory model and therefore unenforceable to that extent.
Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co.
375 Or 262 (2026)The “furnished for regular use” exclusion requires a fact-specific examination of the insured's authorized use. A work-only restriction does not categorically remove a vehicle from the exclusion, but the record did not permit summary judgment for either party.
Spearman v. Progressive Classic Insurance Co.
361 Or 584 · 396 P3d 885 (2017)Important ORS 742.061 authority defining what may remain in dispute within the UM/UIM attorney-fee safe harbor, including the meaning of “damages due the insured.”
Kiryuta v. Country Preferred Insurance Co.
360 Or 1 · 376 P3d 284 (2016)An insurer leaves the ORS 742.061 UM/UIM attorney-fee safe harbor when its pleadings place issues beyond tortfeasor liability and damages in dispute, including additional policy-coverage conditions.
Doss v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon
350 Or App 831 (2026)Applied Kiryuta and held that the insurer's pleading denial of the insured's compliance with policy conditions put coverage beyond the permitted safe-harbor issues and therefore took the insurer outside ORS 742.061(3)'s protection.
D. PIP, Medical Damages & Property Coverage
Cases 30-34 · Guides 19 and 21.
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.
361 Or 62 · 388 P3d 1050 (2017)Ordinary transportation expenses incurred to travel to medical appointments or obtain medication are not themselves PIP “expenses of medical services.”
McBride v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
282 Or App 675 · 386 P3d 679 (2016) · review deniedOregon's PIP presumption that qualifying medical expenses are reasonable and necessary is rebuttable. The case also illustrates the interaction between examination requirements, investigation and the statutory denial timetable.
Providence Health Plan v. Allen
299 Or App 128 · 449 P3d 504 (2019) · review deniedA health-plan administrator that had undertaken obligations of an Oregon health care service contractor was required to follow Oregon's statutory automobile-reimbursement system rather than rely solely on broader contractual subrogation language.
White v. Jubitz Corp.
347 Or 212 · 219 P3d 566 (2009)A plaintiff incurs reasonable medical charges by becoming liable or subject to them when necessary treatment is provided. Later insurance payment or provider write-off does not automatically redefine the tort economic-damages measure.
Gonzales v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon
345 Or 382 · 196 P3d 1 (2008)In the first-party collision policy before the Court, “repair” required restoring the vehicle to preloss physical condition; when repair could not achieve that result, residual diminution in value remained part of the covered loss.
E. Comparative Fault & Tort Allocation
Cases 35-38 · Guide 17 and crash-liability analysis throughout the library.
Johnson v. Tilden
278 Or 11 · 562 P2d 1188 (1977)Early Oregon comparative-negligence authority demonstrating that claimant negligence produces a proportional reduction rather than an automatic bar where the statutory threshold is satisfied.
Shin v. Sunriver Preparatory School, Inc.
199 Or App 352 · 111 P3d 762 (2005) · review deniedIntentional misconduct is not ordinary “fault” to be mechanically apportioned with negligence under Oregon's comparative-fault statutes.
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
351 Or 1 · 261 P3d 1215 (2011)Comparative fault concerns the relative blameworthiness of the negligent actors. It is analytically different from simply assigning percentages of physical or factual causation.
Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson
357 Or 25 · 346 P3d 468 (2015)ORS 31.600, 31.605 and 31.610 operate together as a comprehensive system for allocating fault and distributing liability severally according to the resulting percentages.
F. Wrongful Death & Survival
Cases 39-42 · Guide 20.
Dahlton v. Kyser
370 Or 34 · 509 P3d 116 (2022)Statutory wrongful-death beneficiaries do not become parties to the litigation merely because they are entitled to receive portions of the recovery. The personal representative remains the statutory plaintiff.
Martineau v. McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
371 Or 247 · 533 P3d 1 (2023) · modified 371 Or 408When the defendant's wrongful conduct allegedly caused the death, the personal representative proceeds under ORS 30.020; ORS 30.075 cannot be used as a parallel survival action to duplicate the decedent's pre-death damages.
Estate of James Ritchie v. Helbig
347 Or App 37 · 586 P3d 428 (2026) · review denied 375 Or 332Rejected the constitutional challenge to application of ORS 31.710's wrongful-death noneconomic limitation where the remaining overall remedy was constitutionally substantial on the facts presented.
Estate of Grant Raymond Fisher v. Lee
351 Or App 33 (2026)Applying the $500,000 cap to reduce the particular $20 million noneconomic award before the court violated Oregon's remedy clause as applied. Fisher did not hold ORS 31.710 facially invalid.
G. Settlement & Release
Cases 43-45 · Guide 22.
Wheeler v. White Rock Bottling Co.
229 Or 360 · 366 P2d 527 (1961)Foundational Oregon release-finality case. A broadly worded, honestly negotiated release encompassing unknown injuries was enforced even though the claimant later discovered that the injury was substantially more serious.
Kim v. Allstate Insurance Co.
102 Or App 529 · 795 P2d 582 (1990)Material misrepresentations by an experienced claims representative can present a basis for avoiding an early settlement where the claimant reasonably relied on them. The case does not create a general insurer duty to advise an adversarial claimant how to value the claim.
Raymond v. Feldmann
120 Or App 452 · 853 P2d 297 (1993) · on recon 124 Or App 543An early automobile-injury settlement was not undone merely because the parties later learned that the claimant's injuries were more serious than expected. Mutual mistake did not supply a general escape from the bargain.
Case authority crosswalk to the 23 Oregon guides
| Guide | Topic | Primary cases from this library |
|---|---|---|
| 02 | Required Insurance | Jones · Petersen · Perotti · Collins · Mowry |
| 03 | Finding Every Policy | Petersen · Hoffman · Ledford |
| 04 | UM/UIM | Voyles · Vega · Colton · Carrier · Grijalva · Bonds · Paton |
| 05 | Stacking & Multiple Policies | VanWormer · Wright · Batten |
| 06 | Policy Interpretation | Hoffman · Vega |
| 07 | Coverage Defenses | Collins · Mowry · Cantu · Sheppard |
| 08 | Duty to Defend / Indemnify | Ledford · Bresee Homes · West Hills |
| 09 | Claims Handling / Bad Faith | Farris · Goddard · Moody · Spearman · Kiryuta · Doss |
| 10 | Settlement Demands / Excess Exposure | Goddard · Farris |
| 12 | Agents / Failure to Procure | Monsantofils |
| 13 | Borrowed / Rental Vehicles | Petersen · Mathews · Sheppard |
| 17 | Comparative Fault | Johnson · Shin · Lasley · Eclectic Investment |
| 19 | Crash Damages | White · Gonzales |
| 20 | Wrongful Death / Survival | Dahlton · Martineau · Ritchie · Fisher |
| 21 | PIP / Medical / Reimbursement | Dowell · McBride · Providence v. Allen · White |
| 22 | Settlement / Release | Wheeler · Kim · Raymond · Doss |
Ten-step Oregon case verification workflow
Identify the provision the case interpreted.
A correct historical holding can be wrong under a later amended statute.
Do not substitute annotation or headnote.
Separate holding, dicta, facts and procedural posture.
Review allowed, denied, reversed, affirmed or modified?
Determine whether the rule has been narrowed or distinguished.
Confirm whether later legislation altered the rule.
ERISA, Medicare, interstate insurance and federal motor-carrier law may alter the analysis.
Avoid duplicating the same proposition inconsistently across pages.
Treat case status as version-controlled legal research.
2026 currentness rule
This page was reviewed through September 15, 2026. The Oregon statutory compilation and annotations should be supplemented with current 2026 appellate opinions and Oregon Laws before reliance.
Primary research sources
Current Oregon Supreme Court decisions, advance sheets and opinion status.
Oregon Supreme Court Opinions →Current precedential Court of Appeals opinions and advance sheets.
Oregon Court of Appeals Opinions →Official case-finding summaries tied to individual Oregon statutes. Read the cited cases independently.
Oregon ORS Annotations →Insurance contracts, UM/UIM, PIP, attorney fees, reimbursement and related appellate authorities.
Chapter 742 Annotations →Mandatory financial responsibility, permissive users, exclusions and statutory automobile coverage.
Chapter 806 Annotations →Comparative fault, several liability, damages, collateral benefits and related tort authorities.
Chapter 31 Annotations →Wrongful death, survival, government claims and related Oregon appellate authority.
Chapter 30 Annotations →Unfair claim settlement practices and regulatory insurance authority.
Chapter 746 Annotations →Return to the permanent Oregon library doorway and all 23 guides.
Return to Oregon Library →Oregon's 23-guide library is now complete.
Statutes provide the architecture. Cases tell us how Oregon courts apply that architecture to real disputes. Use this authority library as the research layer beneath the citizen guides: begin with the current statute, read the actual appellate decision, check subsequent history and statutory amendments, and only then state the rule publicly. That method preserves both accessibility for citizens and source integrity for serious legal research.