Actions and Suits in Particular Cases

ORS 30.282
Local public body insurance

  • self-insurance program
  • action against program


The governing body of any local public body may procure insurance against:


Tort liability of the public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties; or


Property damage.


In addition to, or in lieu of procuring insurance, the governing body may establish a self-insurance program against the tort liability of the public body and its officers, employees and agents or against property damage. If the public body has authority to levy taxes, it may include in its levy an amount sufficient to establish and maintain a self-insurance program on an actuarially sound basis.


Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two or more local public bodies may jointly provide by intergovernmental agreement for anything that subsections (1) and (2) of this section authorize individually.


As an alternative or in addition to establishment of a self-insurance program or purchase of insurance or both, the governing body of any local public body and the Oregon Department of Administrative Services may contract for payment by the public body to the department of assessments determined by the department to be sufficient, on an actuarially sound basis, to cover the potential liability of the public body and its officers, employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), and costs of administration, or to cover any portion of potential liability, and for payment by the department of valid claims against the public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties. The department may provide the public body evidence of insurance by issuance of a certificate or policy.


Assessments paid to the department under subsection (4) of this section shall be paid into the Insurance Fund created under ORS 278.425 (Insurance Fund), and claims paid and administrative costs incurred under subsection (4) of this section shall be paid out of the Insurance Fund, and moneys in the Insurance Fund are continuously appropriated for those purposes. When notice of any claim is furnished as provided in the agreement, the claim shall be handled and paid, if appropriate, in the same manner as a claim against a state agency, officer, employee or agent, without regard to the amount the local public body has been assessed.


A self-insurance program established by three or more public bodies under subsections (2) and (3) of this section is subject to the following requirements:


The annual contributions to the program must amount in the aggregate to at least $1 million.


The program must provide documentation that defines program benefits and administration.


Program contributions and reserves must be held in separate accounts and used for the exclusive benefit of the program.


The program must maintain adequate reserves. Reserve adequacy shall be calculated annually with proper actuarial calculations including the following:


Known claims, paid and outstanding;


Estimate of incurred but not reported claims;


Claims handling expenses;


Unearned contributions; and


A claims trend factor.


The program must maintain an unallocated reserve account equal to 25 percent of annual contributions, or $250,000, whichever is greater. As used in this paragraph, “unallocated reserves” means the amount of funds determined by a licensed independent actuary to be greater than what is required to fund outstanding claim liabilities, including an estimate of claims incurred but not reported.


The program must make an annual independently audited financial statement available to the participants of the program.


The program must maintain adequate excess or reinsurance against the risk of economic loss.


The program, a third party administrator or an owner of a third party administrator may not collect commissions or fees from an insurer.


A program operated under subsection (6) of this section that fails to meet any of the listed requirements for a period longer than 30 consecutive days shall be dissolved and any unallocated reserves returned in proportional amounts based on the contributions of the public body to the public bodies that established the program within 90 days of the failure.


A local public body may bring an action against a program operated under subsection (6) of this section if the program fails to comply with the requirements listed in subsection (6) of this section. [1975 c.609 §19; 1977 c.428 §1; 1981 c.109 §4; 1985 c.731 §21; 2005 c.175 §2; 2009 c.67 §19]

Notes of Decisions

Limitation on amount of liability under [former] ORS 30.270 is not waived by governmental defendant purchasing liability insurance in excess of dollar limitation. Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transportation, 291 Or 853, 635 P2d 638 (1981)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Entry into intergovernmental agreement for provision of joint self-insurance by local public bodies as invalid attempt to bind future governing bodies, (1978) Vol 39, p 140

§§ 30.260 to 30.300

Notes of Decisions

Dismissal of action for personal injuries was improper where based solely upon allegations of complaint and allegations did not state sufficient facts for court to determine whether particular governmental act was discretionary function or duty. Hulen v. City of Hermiston, 30 Or App 1141, 569 P2d 665 (1977)

Where plaintiff was mistakenly arrested following computer retrieval of identifying and locator data for individual of similar name, demurrer as to three of defendants was properly sustained because plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts from which duty to plaintiff could be discerned, and summary judgment as to two of defendants was improperly allowed because affidavits did not reveal whether defendant's acts were discretionary or ministerial. Murphy v. City of Portland, 36 Or App 745, 585 P2d 732 (1978)

Complaint allegation that plaintiff submitted application for building permit in proper form was sufficient to allow prosecution of claim against public officer. Dykeman v. State, 39 Or App 629, 593 P2d 1183 (1979)

Even if Children's Services Division's failure to follow required APA rulemaking procedures could constitute tort within meaning of these sections, CSD was immune from tort liability under ORS 30.265 (3)(f) where it terminated its benefit program without prior rulemaking procedures. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 are subject to two-year statute of limitations of Tort Claims Act. Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources, 558 F Supp 521 (1983)

Where police officer pursued plaintiff in marked police car with lights and siren activated in area defendant was assigned to patrol, with no known motive other than to fulfill duty as police officer, trial court was correct in concluding that defendant was acting in course and scope of employment, despite plaintiff's claim that defendant's acts were excessive. Brungardt v. Barton, 69 Or App 440, 685 P2d 1021 (1984)

Plaintiff in 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought under the Oregon Tort Claims Act against municipality for actions of its employes need not show that employes acted according to "custom or usage" as in federal §1983 action. Haase v. City of Eugene, 85 Or App 107, 735 P2d 1258 (1987)

Limitations of Oregon Tort Claims Act do not apply to claims brought in state court alleging violation of federal Civil Rights Act. Rogers v. Saylor, 306 Or 267, 760 P2d 232 (1988)

Mayor was immune from liability in tort claim under this section where former chief of police brought tort action in connection with her removal from office. Harrington v. City of Portland, 708 F Supp 1561 (D. Or. 1988)

Where plaintiffs brought action under 42 U.S.C 1983 and this section after defendant Children's Services Division employees removed plaintiff's child from home following reports of abuse, defendants are entitled to absolute immunity under this section for their discretionary acts as provided by ORS 30.265 (3). Tennyson v. Children's Services Division, 308 Or 80, 775 P2d 1365 (1989)

There is no legislative purpose to extend definition of "agent" to control to include ostensible agent when doctrine of apparent authority is intended to achieve different purpose. Giese v. Bay Area Health District, 101 Or App 410, 790 P2d 1198 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Because there was evidence that resident was not hospital's agent in first place, fact that "loaned servant" doctrine does not eliminate agency relationship between hospital and employee who assists physician in surgery did not give plaintiff grounds for directed verdict. Shepard v. Sisters of Providence, 102 Or App 196, 793 P2d 1384 (1990)

Completed Citations

State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Liability of members of the State Water Resources Board for damages of party adversely affected by reclassification, (1972) Vol 36, p 250; faculty members scope of employment, (1975) Vol 37, p 911; state liability for negligent operation by drivers of state-owned vehicles in authorized car pool, (1978) Vol 39, p 101; State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation as public body, (1980) Vol 40, p 344; Use of Liability Fund balances to pay cost of claims for which date of loss precedes authorized implementation date of state self-insurance program, (1981) Vol 41, p 329; Department of Veterans Affairs fee appraisers and inspectors as agents of state for purposes of tort liability, (1981) Vol 42, p 103; CPAs and PAs volunteering services to investigate and review complaints against accountancy licensees as employes or agents of public body, (1983) Vol 43, p 145; Cause of action under Oregon Tort Claims Act for declarative or injunctive relief or for violation of federal statute,

(1985) Vol. 44, p 416; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool, board, members, employes and agents immune from tort claims, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; director and other state employes are covered by Oregon Tort Claims Act, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; various persons have immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed in carrying out pool programs, (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Citations

53 OLR 371 (1974); 23 WLR 493, 507 (1987); 69 OLR 157 (1990); 38 WLR 657 (2002); 50 WLR 619 (2014)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021