- Bodyfelt Mount
- legal
No “Accident?” Implications of the Amendment
to ORCP 36
By: Laura Althouse and Rick Lee
Reprinted with permission by the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel
An amendment to ORCP 36 dealing with reservations of rights became effective January 1, 2012. The amendment overlays a rule requiring disclosure of the existence and contents of an insurance policy. The amendment states that, upon the request of an adverse party, a party shall disclose: “[t]he existence of any coverage denial or reservation of rights, and identify the provisions in any insurance agreement or policy upon which such coverage denial or reservation of rights is based.” ORCP 36B (2)(a)(ii). … Read the rest
Electronic Discovery Issues: Looking Past Legal Requirements to Practical Considerations
By: Heather Bowman
As email, texting, and other electronic communication continues to proliferate, managing that information in the discovery process has become a more commonplace issue, even beyond commercial litigation. The applicable rules of civil procedure may provide the legal framework for electronic discovery (more so in federal court). These rules do not regulate all of the practical aspects of discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).… Read the rest
Oregon Court of Appeals Limits Liability of Business Owners for Criminal Conduct of Third-Parties
By: Jason Gardner
In 1987, the Oregon Supreme Court decided the case of Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist., 303 Or 1 (1987). In this case, the court chronicled the state’s history of evaluating negligence cases, juxtaposing the concepts of “duty” and “foreseeability.” What followed was a relative sea change for litigators in the approach to negligence cases. … Read the rest
