Suit on policy
Source:
Section 742.240 — Suit on policy, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors742.html.
See also annotations under ORS 743.660 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Commencement of an action within the limitation in this section was governed by ORS 12.220. Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 484 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)
Where defendant-insurers demanded appraisal under [former] ORS 743.648 to determine actual cash value of plaintiffs’ building which was destroyed by fire, action by plaintiffs, seeking determination of various policy provision relevant to fixing amount of loss, was premature and this section, together with [former] ORS 743.648, required plaintiffs to proceed with the appraisal before bringing declaratory judgment action. Director v. So. Carolina Ins. Co., 49 Or App 179, 619 P2d 649 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Since purpose of this section is not to be statutory limitation period but to be limit on ability of insurers to impose shorter limitation period by operation of contract, ORS 12.155 cannot toll the running of this limitation period. Ben Rybke, Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 293 Or 513, 651 P2d 138 (1982)
Where policy does not comply with this section, courts must construe policy to contain mandatory statutory requirements and applicable limitation period is one-year period under this section. Olson v. National Indemnity Co., 112 Or App 359, 829 P2d 716 (1992)
Statutory language prevents application of discovery rule to determine date of loss. Moore v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co., 317 Or 235, 855 P2d 626 (1993)
Suit limitation provision is neither statute of limitations nor forfeiture of coverage. Herman v. Valley Insurance Co., 145 Or App 124, 928 P2d 985 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Insurer is not required to show prejudice in order to assert suit limitation defense. Herman v. Valley Insurance Co., 145 Or App 124, 928 P2d 985 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date