Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018 (2026)

Effect of providing coverage; exclusive remedy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

656.018 Effect of providing coverage; exclusive remedy. (1)(a) The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.017 (1) is exclusive and in place of all other liability arising out of injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment that are sustained by subject workers, the workers’ beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer on account of such conditions or claims resulting therefrom, specifically including claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by third persons from whom damages are sought on account of such conditions, except as specifically provided otherwise in this chapter.

(b) This subsection shall not apply to claims for indemnity or contribution asserted by a railroad, as defined in ORS 824.020, or by a corporation, individual or association of individuals which is subject to regulation pursuant to ORS chapter 757 or 759.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, all agreements or warranties contrary to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection entered into after July 19, 1977, are void.

(2) The rights given to a subject worker and the beneficiaries of the subject worker under this chapter for injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment are in lieu of any remedies they might otherwise have for such injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions against the worker’s employer under ORS 654.305 to 654.336 or other laws, common law or statute, except to the extent the worker is expressly given the right under this chapter to bring suit against the employer of the worker for an injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition.

(3) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section is also extended to the employer’s insurer, the self-insured employer’s claims administrator, the Department of Consumer and Business Services, and to the contracted agents, employees, partners, limited liability company members, general partners, limited liability partners, limited partners, officers and directors of the employer, the employer’s insurer, the self-insured employer’s claims administrator and the department, except that the exemption from liability shall not apply:

(a) If the willful and unprovoked aggression by a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition;

(b) If the worker and the person otherwise exempt under this subsection are not engaged in the furtherance of a common enterprise or the accomplishment of the same or related objectives;

(c) If the failure of the employer to comply with a notice posted pursuant to ORS 654.082 is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition; or

(d) If the negligence of a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition and the negligence occurs outside of the capacity that qualifies the person for exemption under this section.

(4) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section applies to a worker leasing company and the client to whom workers are provided when the worker leasing company and the client comply with ORS 656.850 (3).

(5)(a) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section applies to a temporary service provider, as that term is used in ORS 656.850, and also extends to the client to whom workers are provided when the temporary service provider complies with ORS 656.017.

(b) The exemption from liability given a client under paragraph (a) of this subsection is also extended to the client’s insurer, the self-insured client’s claims administrator, the department, and the contracted agents, employees, officers and directors of the client, the client’s insurer, the self-insured client’s claims administrator and the department, except that the exemption from liability shall not apply:

(A) If the willful and unprovoked aggression by a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition;

(B) If the worker and the person otherwise exempt under this subsection are not engaged in the furtherance of a common enterprise or the accomplishment of the same or related objectives;

(C) If the failure of the client to comply with a notice posted pursuant to ORS 654.082 is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition; or

(D) If the negligence of a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition and the negligence occurs outside of the capacity that qualifies the person for exemption under this subsection.

(6) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit payment, voluntarily or otherwise, to injured workers or their beneficiaries in excess of the compensation required to be paid under this chapter.

(7) The exclusive remedy provisions and limitation on liability provisions of this chapter apply to all injuries and to diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions of subject workers arising out of and in the course of employment whether or not they are determined to be compensable under this chapter. [1965 c.285 §6; 1975 c.115 §1; 1977 c.514 §1; 1977 c.804 §3a; 1987 c.447 §110; 1989 c.600 §1; 1993 c.628 §6; 1995 c.332 §5; amendments by 1995 c.332 §5a repealed by 1999 c.6 §1; 1995 c.733 §76; 1997 c.275 §§6,7; 1997 c.491 §§1,2; amendments by 1999 c.6 §4 repealed by 2001 c.865 §23; 2013 c.488 §1]

Note: The amendments to 656.018 by section 5, chapter 78, Oregon Laws 2025, become operative July 1, 2027. See section 23, chapter 78, Oregon Laws 2025. The text that is operative on and after July 1, 2027, is set forth for the user’s convenience.

656.018. (1)(a) Except as specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, the liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required under ORS 656.017 (1) is exclusive and in place of all other liability arising out of injuries, diseases, symptom complexes or similar conditions arising out of and in the course of employment that are sustained by subject workers, the workers’ beneficiaries and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer on account of such conditions or claims resulting therefrom, specifically including claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by third persons from whom damages are sought on account of such conditions.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, all agreements or warranties contrary to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection entered into after July 19, 1977, are void.

(3)(a) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section is also extended to the employer’s insurer, the self-insured employer’s claims administrator, the Department of Consumer and Business Services, and to the contracted agents, employees, partners, limited liability company members, general partners, limited liability partners, limited partners, officers and directors of the employer, the employer’s insurer, the self-insured employer’s claims administrator and the department.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the exemption from liability shall not apply if:

(A) The willful and unprovoked aggression by a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition;

(B) The worker and the person otherwise exempt under this subsection are not engaged in the furtherance of a common enterprise or the accomplishment of the same or related objectives;

(C) The failure of the employer to comply with a notice posted pursuant to ORS 654.082 is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition; or

(D) The negligence of a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition and the negligence occurs outside of the capacity that qualifies the person for exemption under this section.

(4) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section applies to a professional employer organization and the client with which the professional employer organization has entered into a PEO relationship when the professional employer organization and the client comply with ORS 656.850 (2).

(5)(a) The exemption from liability given an employer under this section applies to a temporary service provider and also extends to the client to whom workers are provided when the temporary service provider complies with ORS 656.017.

(b)(A) The exemption from liability given a client under paragraph (a) of this subsection is also extended to the client’s insurer, the self-insured client’s claims administrator, the department, and the contracted agents, employees, officers and directors of the client, the client’s insurer, the self-insured client’s claims administrator and the department.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the exemption from liability shall not apply if:

(i) The willful and unprovoked aggression by a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition;

(ii) The worker and the person otherwise exempt under this subsection are not engaged in the furtherance of a common enterprise or the accomplishment of the same or related objectives;

(iii) The failure of the client to comply with a notice posted pursuant to ORS 654.082 is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition; or

(iv) The negligence of a person otherwise exempt under this subsection is a substantial factor in causing the injury, disease, symptom complex or similar condition and the negligence occurs outside of the capacity that qualifies the person for exemption under this subsection.

(6) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit payment, voluntarily or otherwise, to injured workers or their beneficiaries in excess of the compensation required to be paid under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 180 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). · cites it 102× “[3] The trial court ruled that ORS 656.018 was the exclusive remedy for all three claims and that application of that statutory provision was constitutional.”

Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 888 P.2d 544 (Or. 1995). · cites it 107× “The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant is immune from liability and that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the Workers' Compensation Law.”

Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 337 P.3d 111 (Or. 2014). · cites it 43× “165(1), 7 or under the statute that provides that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for certain workplace injuries, ORS 656.018 (2011). 8 Plaintiff responded that neither ORS 63.”

Nancy Doty, Inc. v. Wildcat Haven, Inc., 439 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 39× “*1019 *97 The "exclusive remedy" provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, ORS 656.018, generally makes an employer that satisfies its insurance obligations for subject workers immune from civil liability for injuries to a worker arising out of the worker's employment.”

Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 24× “In its third assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court should have granted defendant's motion to dismiss Olsen's claim for assault and each plaintiff's claim for negligence because the workers' compensation system provides plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.”

Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC, 533 P.3d 21 (Or. 2023). · cites it 38× “1 Plaintiff, who brought the negligence action at issue here against his employer (defendant), acknowledges that the Workers’ Compensation Law generally immunizes covered employ- ers against civil liability for injuries arising out of a work- er’s employment.”

Young v. Mobil Oil Corp., 735 P.2d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 18× “ORS 656.018. Before amendment in 1977, ORS 656.”

Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 941 P.2d 1065 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 25× “Plaintiff appeals and assigns error on the grounds that the court’s application of ORS 656.018, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, to his claim, violates the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, and the contract clause of Article I, section 21,…”

Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc., 919 P.2d 465 (Or. 1996). · cites it 11× “ORS 656.018 provides, in part: “(1)(a) The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.”

Bundy v. Nustar GP, LLC, 373 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “The exclusive remedy bar is found in ORS 656.018, 1 and is available to an employer to raise *787 as a defense to a claim brought against it by an employee.”

Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “Because the legislature has chosen not to provide decedent's parents with a wrongful death action based on a theory of negligence, and because Oregon has no common law action for wrongful death, * * * they have suffered no legally cognizable injury to their person, property, or…”

Fields v. Jantec, Inc., 857 P.2d 95 (Or. 1993). · cites it 16× “The trial court granted the motions and entered judgment for all defendants. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant B & H, because plaintiffs exclusive remedy against her employer was under the…”

Show all 180 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(1) — 42 cases

Errand v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 888 P.2d 544 (Or. 1995). “The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant is immune from liability and that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the Workers' Compensation Law.”

Young v. Mobil Oil Corp., 735 P.2d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 656.018. Before amendment in 1977, ORS 656.”

Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 337 P.3d 111 (Or. 2014). “165(1), 7 or under the statute that provides that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for certain workplace injuries, ORS 656.018 (2011). 8 Plaintiff responded that neither ORS 63.”

Ore-Ida Foods, Inc. v. Indian Head Cattle Co., 627 P.2d 469 (Or. 1981).

Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Tuality Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 790 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(1)(a) — 28 cases

Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc., 919 P.2d 465 (Or. 1996). “ORS 656.018 provides, in part: “(1)(a) The liability of every employer who satisfies the duty required by ORS 656.”

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). “[3] The trial court ruled that ORS 656.018 was the exclusive remedy for all three claims and that application of that statutory provision was constitutional.”

Eckles v. State of Oregon, 760 P.2d 846 (Or. 1988).

Behurst v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 203 P.3d 207 (Or. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(1)(c) — 2 cases

State Accident Ins. Fund Corp. v. Reel, 735 P.2d 364 (Or. 1987).

Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Tuality Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 790 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(2) — 14 cases

Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Because the legislature has chosen not to provide decedent's parents with a wrongful death action based on a theory of negligence, and because Oregon has no common law action for wrongful death, * * * they have suffered no legally cognizable injury to their person, property, or…”

Roberts v. SAIF Corp., 136 P.3d 1105 (Or. 2006).

Fields v. Jantec, Inc., 857 P.2d 95 (Or. 1993). “The trial court granted the motions and entered judgment for all defendants. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant B & H, because plaintiffs exclusive remedy against her employer was under the…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(3) — 33 cases

Nancy Doty, Inc. v. Wildcat Haven, Inc., 439 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “*1019 *97 The "exclusive remedy" provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, ORS 656.018, generally makes an employer that satisfies its insurance obligations for subject workers immune from civil liability for injuries to a worker arising out of the worker's employment.”

Wingfoot Enter. v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. 2003).

Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc., 274 P.3d 202 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Palmer v. Bi-Mart Co., 758 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(3)(a) — 10 cases

Goings v. Calportland Co., 392 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996).

Hanson v. Versarail Sys., Inc., 28 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Harris v. Pameco Corp., 12 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(3)(b) — 1 case

Sumner v. Coe, 596 P.2d 617 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(3)(d) — 2 cases

Toohey v. Aviation Adventures, LLC, 345 P.3d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(4) — 1 case

Baugh v. Maint. & Mach. Erectors, Inc., 968 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(5)(a) — 4 cases

Baugh v. Maint. & Mach. Erectors, Inc., 968 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Emp. Solutions Staffing Grp. v. SAIF, 343 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Phillips v. Bohnstedt, 27 P.3d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(6) — 2 cases

Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 23 P.3d 333 (Or. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(7) — 8 cases

Roberts v. SAIF Corp., 136 P.3d 1105 (Or. 2006).

Merten v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 228 P.3d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

MacCrone v. Edwards Ctr., Inc., 980 P.2d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Bundy v. NuStar GP LLC, 533 P.3d 21 (Or. 2023). “1 Plaintiff, who brought the negligence action at issue here against his employer (defendant), acknowledges that the Workers’ Compensation Law generally immunizes covered employ- ers against civil liability for injuries arising out of a work- er’s employment.”

Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 23 P.3d 333 (Or. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(l)(a) — 26 cases

Hudjohn v. S&g Mach. Co., 114 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Panpat v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., 49 P.3d 773 (Or. 2002).

Harris v. Pameco Corp., 12 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Juarez v. Windsor Rock Prods., Inc., 144 P.3d 211 (Or. 2006).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.018(l)(c) — 2 cases

Clarendon Nat'l Ins. v. Am. States Ins., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Or. 2010).

Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Tuality Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 790 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

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.