Financial Responsibility Law

ORS 806.150
Department verification program

  • rules


The Department of Transportation shall establish by rule a program to verify compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of operating a motor vehicle in this state. The program established under this section shall comply with all of the following:

(1)

The department may select vehicles registered in this state for verification when the department considers the selection necessary or appropriate. The department may emphasize verification of vehicles registered to individuals who:

(a)

Have been convicted of violating ORS 806.010 (Driving uninsured prohibited);

(b)

Have provided proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements that has been previously found to be not correct; or

(c)

The department has reasonable grounds to believe are not in compliance with financial responsibility requirements.

(2)

When a vehicle is selected for verification under this section, the department shall provide a notice of verification to the registered owner of the vehicle. The notice of verification must:

(a)

Inform the owner that the vehicle has been selected for verification; and

(b)

Require the owner to provide proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements within the time specified by the department by rule.

(3)

After the department receives proof of compliance from a registered owner as required under subsection (2) of this section, the department shall forward the proof of compliance to the listed insurer, or use other means, to determine whether the proof of compliance is correct. An insurer shall notify the department if the proof of compliance is not correct within the time specified by the department by rule.

(4)

Civil liability does not accrue to the insurer or any of its employees for reports made to the department under this section when the reports are made in good faith based on the most recent information available to the insurer. [1983 c.338 §851; 1985 c.16 §431; 1985 c.714 §2; 1987 c.158 §165; 1993 c.751 §29; 2005 c.142 §1; 2019 c.312 §1]
Note: The amendments to 806.150 (Department verification program) by section 1, chapter 312, Oregon Laws 2019, become operative July 1, 2020. See section 37, chapter 312, Oregon Laws 2019. The text that is operative until July 1, 2020, is set forth for the user’s convenience.
806.150 (Department verification program). The Department of Transportation shall provide a program of verification of compliance with financial responsibility requirements under ORS 803.460 (Proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements) and 806.010 (Driving uninsured prohibited). The program established by the department under this section shall comply with all of the following:

(1)

The verification shall be based on motor vehicles registered in this state.

(2)

The department may select vehicles for verification when the department considers the selection necessary or appropriate. The department may emphasize, in accordance with rules adopted by the department, verification of vehicles registered to individuals who:

(a)

Have been convicted of violating ORS 806.010 (Driving uninsured prohibited);

(b)

Have submitted certifications of compliance with financial responsibility requirements that have been previously found to be incorrect; or

(c)

The department has reasonable grounds to believe are not in compliance with financial responsibility requirements.

(3)

When a vehicle is selected for verification under this section, the department shall mail a letter and certification form described under ORS 806.180 (Information to be provided when certification of compliance required) to the registered owner of the vehicle notifying the owner that the vehicle has been selected for verification and requiring the owner to respond within 30 days and certify that the owner is in compliance with financial responsibility requirements as of the date of the letter. In addition, the department may seek verification by communicating directly with an insurer or its designee.

(4)

Failure of an owner either to return the certification of compliance with financial responsibility requirements to the department within 30 days after mailing by the department or to certify compliance as of the date of the letter, or a determination by the department that a certification is not accurate constitutes reasonable grounds for the department to proceed with a demand for verification under ORS 806.160.

(5)

The department shall investigate all certifications returned to the department under this section as follows:

(a)

If the owner certifies the existence of insurance described under ORS 806.080 (Insurance), the department shall forward the certification to the listed insurer to determine whether the certification is correct. An insurer shall notify the department if the certification is not correct.

(b)

The department may also determine the correctness of certifications of other means of satisfying financial responsibility requirements for the vehicle.

(6)

No civil liability shall accrue to the insurer or any of its employees for reports made to the department under this section when the reports are made in good faith based on the most recent information available to the insurer.
Note: 806.160 was repealed by section 36, chapter 312, Oregon Laws 2019. The text of 806.150 (Department verification program) that is operative until July 1, 2020, was not amended by enactment of the Legislative Assembly to reflect the repeal. Editorial adjustment of 806.150 (Department verification program) for the repeal of 806.160 has not been made.
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)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021