Auto Insurance companies are filled with smart people who need to evaluate risk and extrapolate that risk over a long time and a large geographic area.  If they get it wrong, then their company may fail, so they have every incentive to get it right.  While their risk may seem like it is based on understanding damage done, there is another layer that is not just damage done, but how will the law of that jurisdiction value and evaluate that damage in terms of dollars lost for that particular car crash. 

For example, according to money.com in 2020 there are substantial differences in auto insurance cost to the consumer that vary from state to state. 

In 2024 the Nevada Division of Insurance cited rising cost of litigation as a major cost driver for insurance companies. As a result, to keep their businesses profitable, insurance companies are typically experts in how the laws of a particular state impact the value of a case. It is valuable, if you need to deal with a car crash, that you know a few of the major legal differences in Oregon Law.   

(1) ORS 20.080

This statute is a tool that allows you to settle a small (under $10,000) injury claim quickly in Oregon by placing the risk of an attorney fee award against the at-fault driver on the at-fault driver if they fail to provide a written offer for settlement quickly and the case must be litigated and you recover more than the last-best pre-filing offer.  I know it sounds confusing, but it is pretty simple: (1) You have to send a demand letter to the at-fault driver and their insurance carrier if known, (2) You have to provide “a copy of medical records and bills for medical treatment adequate to reasonably inform the person receiving the written demand of the nature and scope of the injury claimed.” (3) You have to wait out the 30 day time period for a response, (4) You cannot demand more than $10,000, (5) Then evaluate the last best offer if it is below $10,000 and if you think you can do better in a lawsuit then just file a lawsuit, if you win you get not just the amount of damages but also your attorney fees in bringing the lawsuit.  It is important to note that this should be used when there is no risk of a counterclaim being brought against you because it the other side is successful in their counterclaim then you may owe them for their attorney fees.   

(2) ORS 31.715

This statute provides that if you don’t have your own car insurance you may not be able to recover your noneconomic damages.  Remember that in Oregon we have economic damages which are verifiable monetary losses from a tort so like medical bills and property damage and we also have noneconomic damages which are losses that cannot really be reduced into dollars.  Pain and suffering are what people think about typically when they think about noneconomic damages.  Generally, the rule will not apply if (1) The at-fault driver was driving uninsured, (2) The at-fault driver was driving drunk, (3) The at-fault driver was driving recklessly in violation of ORS 811.140, (4) The tortious conduct was an intentional tort, (5) The at-fault driver was engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony at the time of the tortious behavior, (6) If you were driving uninsured but the policy lapsed less than 180 days ago and you don’t have a conviction for driving uninsured in violation of ORS 806.010 in the 1 year period immediately preceding the date on which the policy lapsed.  The best takeaway from this is make sure you have auto insurance if you are driving, but if the policy lapsed recently, it is worth getting into the details of the timeline to see if this carve-out even applies to you.   

(3) Fazzolari Trio

This is Oregon’s approach to negligence law.  It focuses on the foreseeable risk of harm caused by a person’s conduct and was stated best by the Oregon State bar when they said: 

So, in general, to evaluate negligence in Oregon you have to sort of zoom out from your own perspective and adopt the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable person.  From that person’s perspective, was the risk of harm foreseeable?  If so, assuming it caused damages, then the conduct is likely tortious and negligent.  Interestingly, this evaluation is always done with the benefit of hindsight.  But even so, in theory it decreases the likelihood that a person will engage in a course of conduct that causes a risk of harm to others.

I hope this has been helpful. If after reading it you feel like you need more information, feel free to call us at (541-HUNKING) and we will be happy to help if we can and if not, try and get you to someone who can help you.