Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 465.257 (2026)

Right of contribution from other person liable for remedial action costs; allocation of orphan share

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      465.257 Right of contribution from other person liable for remedial action costs; allocation of orphan share. (1) Any person who is liable or potentially liable under ORS 465.255 may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under ORS 465.255. When such a claim for contribution is at trial and the court determines that apportionment of recoverable costs among the liable parties is appropriate, the share of the remedial action costs that is to be borne by each party shall be determined by the court, using such equitable factors as the court deems appropriate, including but not limited to the following:

      (a) The amount of hazardous substances contributed to the facility;

      (b) The degree of toxicity or hazard posed by the hazardous substances to public health, safety and welfare, and to the environment;

      (c) The degree of involvement in the release of the hazardous substance by the liable persons;

      (d) The relative culpability or negligence of the liable persons;

      (e) The degree of cooperation by the liable persons with the government or with persons who have a financial interest in the facility;

      (f) The extent of the participation by the liable person in response actions at the facility;

      (g) The length of time the facility was owned or operated by the liable person during the time the release occurred;

      (h) Whether the acts or omissions that resulted in a release were in material compliance with applicable laws, standards, regulations, licenses or permits;

      (i) The economic benefit derived from the facility or from the acts or omissions that resulted in a release;

      (j) The circumstances and conditions involved in the facility’s conveyance, including the price paid and any discounts granted; and

      (k) The quality of evidence concerning liability and equitable shares.

      (2) At the time of trial, if a person who is otherwise liable under ORS 465.255 is no longer subject to a judgment due to bankruptcy, dissolution or death (an orphan share), the court may, in its discretion, allocate that person’s equitable share to the other liable persons in proportion to their equitable shares or on any other equitable basis taking into consideration any relationship between the orphan share’s liable person and each other liable person. [1995 c.662 §5]

 

      Note: 465.257 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 465 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Certain Underwriters v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins., 230 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Certain Underwriters v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins., 230 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “” The phrase “is liable or potentially liable” is used throughout Oregon’s environmental cleanup statutes and, in particular, in three contribution-related statutes: ORS 465.257; ORS 465.325; and ORS 465.480.”
Goldingay v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (D. Or. 2018). · cites it 10× “Declaratory Relief Under ORS § 465.257, any party potentially liable under ORS § 465.”
Rudder v. Hosack, 506 P.3d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “Although any potentially liable person may bring a claim for contribution under ORS 465.257, the court could assign responsibil- ity only to a party found to be liable under ORS 465.”
Newell v. Weston, 946 P.2d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “*566 In resolving contribution claims, the court shall allocate remedial action costs among liable parties in accordance with ORS 465.257.” ORS 465.257, in turn, identifies a variety of “equitable factors” to consider in allocating remediation costs.”
Ironwood Homes, Inc. v. Bowen, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (D. Or. 2010). · cites it 5× “In any event, as noted, Oregon Revised Statute § 465.257 provides the specific right of contribution for the type of liability for remediation costs at issue in this case.”
Arkema Inc. v. Anderson Roofing Co., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (D. Or. 2010). · cites it 2× “Under either claim, the court allocates remedial action costs among liable parties in accordance with factors set out in Oregon Revised Statute section 465.257. Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 465.325(a), 465.”
McDonald v. Sun Oil Co., 423 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (D. Or. 2006). “Counterclaim Two — Contribution Under Oregon Law Defendant counterclaimed for contribution under ORS 465.257 for both the Horse Heaven property and the McDonald Ranch.”
Frontier Recovery, LLC v. Lane Cnty., 727 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Or. 2010). “State Statutory Contribution Claim Plaintiff seeks contribution from defendant under ORS 465.257. Defendant argues that in order to make a claim for contribution under Oregon law, DEQ must have required some type of remedial action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 465.257(1) — 2 cases
Certain Underwriters v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins., 230 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” The phrase “is liable or potentially liable” is used throughout Oregon’s environmental cleanup statutes and, in particular, in three contribution-related statutes: ORS 465.257; ORS 465.325; and ORS 465.480.”
Ironwood Homes, Inc. v. Bowen, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (D. Or. 2010). “In any event, as noted, Oregon Revised Statute § 465.257 provides the specific right of contribution for the type of liability for remediation costs at issue in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 465.257(1)(a) — 1 case
Rudder v. Hosack, 506 P.3d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Although any potentially liable person may bring a claim for contribution under ORS 465.257, the court could assign responsibil- ity only to a party found to be liable under ORS 465.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.