Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 734.695 (2026)

Liability of insured of insolvent insurer

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

      734.695 Liability of insured of insolvent insurer. (1) The insured of an insolvent insurer is not personally liable for amounts due any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool or underwriting association as subrogation recoveries or otherwise up to the applicable limits of liability provided by the insurance policy issued by the insolvent insurer.

      (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, and except for claims arising out of workers’ compensation policies subject to ORS chapter 656, the Oregon Insurance Guaranty Association may recover from the following persons the amount of any covered claim, including defense fees, paid on behalf of such person under ORS 734.510 to 734.710:

      (a) Any insured whose net worth exceeds $25 million on December 31 of the year next preceding the date the insurer becomes an insolvent insurer and whose liability obligations to other persons are satisfied in whole or in part by payments made under ORS 734.510 to 734.710; and

      (b) Any person who is an affiliate of the insolvent insurer and whose liability obligations to other persons are satisfied in whole or in part by payments made under ORS 734.510 to 734.710.

      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the association may recover from an insured with the net worth described in subsection (2)(a) of this section:

      (a) All payments the association made to or on behalf of the insured for a claim under a cybersecurity insurance policy, whether the payment was for indemnity, defense or another purpose; and

      (b) The association’s legal fees and court costs in any action the association brings to recover the payments. [1977 c.793 §4; 2001 c.974 §2; 2025 c.20 §8]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2006 · leading case: Carrier v. Hicks, 851 P.2d 581 (Or. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carrier v. Hicks, 851 P.2d 581 (Or. 1993). · cites it 6× “Another OIGA statute, ORS 734.695, provides: "The insured of an insolvent insurer shall not be personally liable for amounts due any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool or underwriting association as subrogation recoveries or otherwise up to the applicable limits of liability…”
Expl. Place, Inc. v. Midwest Drywall Co., Inc., 89 P.3d 536 (Kan. 2004). “The trial court granted summaiy judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of an Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 734.695 , which barred subrogation recoveries against the insured of an insolvent insurer.”
Corvallis Aero Serv., Inc. v. Villalobos, 724 P.2d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” Also germane is ORS 734.695, which provides: “The insured of an insolvent insurer shall not be personally liable for amounts due any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool or underwriting association as subrogation recoveries or otherwise up to the applicable limits of liability…”
Window Coverings, Inc. v. Campbell, 755 P.2d 719 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “In these consolidated cases, the trial court granted summary judgments for defendants, three of whom are partners and the other an employe of Airvest Properties, 1 on the ground that the actions are barred by ORS 734.695. That statute relieves the insureds of insolvent insurers…”
Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Oregon Ins. Guarantee Ass'n, 136 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “According to OIGA, both ORS 734.695 and ORS 734.510 provide that “covered claim” does not include subrogation claims.”
Bird v. Norpac Foods, Inc., 888 P.2d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “510(4)(b)(B) and ORS 734.695. 3 See Corvallis Aero Service v.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 734.695(1): 1 case
Liberty Nw. Ins. v. Oregon Ins. Guarantee Ass'n, 136 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “According to OIGA, both ORS 734.695 and ORS 734.510 provide that “covered claim” does not include subrogation claims.”
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.