BodyFelt Mount

image
  • Bodyfelt Mount
  • legal updates

Oregon Supreme Court Addresses Physician-Patient Privilege


By: Jason Gardner

Many of Oregon’s discovery rules surprise out-of-state litigators and clients. The most obvious of these is the prohibition of expert discovery. Similarly, the lack of interrogatories enhances Oregon’s reputation as a “trial by ambush” state. While fact-pleading can be a mitigating factor, a well-pled complaint is no substitute for complete discovery.

An additional oddity for Oregon is the continuation of physician-patient privilege through discovery even when plaintiff’s physical condition is at issue.… Read more

Anti-Assignment Clause in Contractor’s Insurance Policy Held Enforceable


By: Jamison McCune

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently held, in Clinton Condominiums Owners Association v. Truck Ins. Exch., 282 Or App 484 (Nov. 30, 2016), that a contractor could not assign breach of contact claims against its insurer because of an anti-assignment clause in the contractor’s insurance policy. The Clinton decision illustrates an important limitation on the use of covenant judgments.… Read more

Considerations for Sureties Facing Motor Vehicle Dealer Surety Bond Claims in Oregon


By: Vicki Smith

Motor vehicle dealer surety bonds are a discrete and specialized category in the world of surety and fidelity. The primary purpose of surety bonds is to protect the public – and one area where the public needs to be protected is in the purchase of vehicles. Like many states, Oregon requires all automobile dealers to obtain a motor vehicle dealer surety bond (“MVD bond”).… Read more

Significant Change – “Bystander Rule” Adopted in Oregon


By: Skip Winters

The Oregon Supreme Court again significantly changed Oregon law in the case Philibert v. Kluser where it held that Oregon will now follow the “bystander rule” in cases where plaintiffs seek to recover damages for emotional trauma caused by witnessing serious bodily injury to a loved one. In doing so, the Court rejected the former rule in Oregon – the “impact rule”- which required those seeking compensation for emotional distress to have also suffered a physical injury.… Read more

Oregon Supreme Court Holds Statute of Limitations for Negligent Construction Claims Is Two Years After Claim Accrues


By: Jamison McCune

In Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 359 Or 694, 375 P.3d 463 (June 16, 2016), the Oregon Supreme Court held that negligence claims for construction defects are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, with a discovery rule. Since the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc., 350 Or 29, 249 P.3d 534 (2011), Oregon trial courts applied three different limitation periods: (1) two years with a discovery rule; (2) six years; or (3) six years with a discovery rule. Read more