Insuralex

  • The Group
    • About us
    • Current Management
    • Past Presidents
    • Membership inquiries
    • Regulatory Information
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s
Join

The Oregon Supreme Court issues insurers a lump of coal

by Insuralex / Wednesday, 03 January 2024 / Published in Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, News + Articles

In the long-awaited opinion of Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, issued December 29, 2023, the Oregon Supreme Court, split 4-3, announced that the plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to a legally cognizable common-law negligence claim for emotional distress damages.

In so holding, the Oregon Supreme Court departs from established Oregon law as well as the reasoning in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 317 Or App 233, 248, 505 P3d 1047 (2022).

The facts of the case are important to the court’s reasoning. Plaintiff’s husband, decedent, was accidently shot and killed on a camping trip. Plaintiff filed a claim for life insurance policy benefits, and the defendant life insurance company initially denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the claim fell within the policy’s exclusion for deaths caused by decedent being under the influence of any narcotic or controlled substance.

Plaintiff then filed suit against the insurer alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The insurer moved to dismiss the implied covenant and negligence claims and to strike the allegations seeking emotional distress damages. The trial court granted those motions. Thereafter the insurer paid the amount owed under the contract – $3,000.

Next Plaintiff appealed. In Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 317 Or App 233, 248, 505 P3d 1047 (2022), the Court of Appeals up ended Oregon law by concluding that an alleged violation of ORS 746.230(1) supports a negligence per se claim. The insurer petitioned for review, and the Oregon Supreme Court accepted review.

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed on other grounds. Importantly, the court clarifies that negligence per se is not a separate type of negligence claim. Instead, negligence per se is “simply shorthand for a negligence claim in which the standard of care is expressed by a statute or rule.” Abraham v. T. Henry Const., Inc., 350 Or 29, 35 n 5. Further, the court notes that in enacting ORS 746.230, the legislature did not intend to create a statutory tort.

The opinion makes clear that the court is reluctant to permit recovery of emotional distress damages in the absence of physical injury and that a limiting principle, in addition to foreseeability, is needed to avoid indeterminate and potentially unlimited liability. The court notes, “In this case, we are convinced that plaintiff has alleged a legally protected interest  that provides that limiting principle; that is, plaintiff, as the surviving spouse of a deceased breadwinner, has a legally protected interest sufficient to support a common law negligence claim for emotional distress damages against her husband’s life insurer for failure to reasonably investigate and promptly pay her claim for insurance benefits.”

After Moody, it is clear that in limited circumstances, a common-law negligence claim and recovery of emotion distress damages is available to a policyholder against its insurer. The court concludes by stating, “Our decision in this case is a narrow one that applies and accords with the limiting principles that have guided our past decisions and does not unfairly expose defendant to liabilities that it could not have expected and guarded against.”

 

Bernstein, Lloyd

Mitchson, Jacqueline

 

Tagged under: Bullivant Houser, Insurance attorneys California, Insurance Attorneys Washington, Insurance Lawyers Oregon, Jackie Mitchson, Lloyd Bernstein, Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, Oregon Supreme Court

OUR SPONSORS

  • The Group
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s

Insuralex is not a law firm, does not practice law and does not provide legal advice or legal opinions. Insuralex members are not a partnership of law firms or lawyers and are not affiliated or in a relationship for the joint practice of law. Insuralex member firms are strictly independent firms.

Insuralex 2025    Cookie Policy | Conditions of use | Privacy Policy | FAQ's | Contact

TOP
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}