Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.038 (2026)
Validity and construction of noncomplying forms
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
742.038 Validity and construction of noncomplying forms. (1) A policy in violation of the Insurance Code, but otherwise binding on the insurer, shall be held valid, but shall be construed as provided in the Insurance Code.
(2) Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered invalid but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such conditions and provisions as would have applied had such policy been in full compliance with the Insurance Code. [Formerly 743.069]
742.040 [Amended by 1965 c.611 §6; repealed by 1967 c.359 §704]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Mowry, 261 P.3d 1 (Or. 2011).
Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Mowry, 261 P.3d 1 (Or. 2011). “The court, however, noted that that provision is merely an embodiment of ORS 742.038(2), which provides: "Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered…”
Butterfield v. State of Oregon, 987 P.2d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “It could also have noted that ORS 742.038 provides that a noncomplying policy is not invalid but will be construed as if it complied with the statute.”
Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 952 P.2d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “, a vehicle can logically be both “insured” and yet “underinsured.” Thus, plaintiffs reason, ORS 742.”
Collins v. Farmers Ins., 822 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1991). “[2] In this connection, note ORS 742.038(2), which states: "Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered invalid but shall be construed and applied in…”
Thompson v. Est. of Adrian L. Pannell, 29 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “See ORS 742.038; ORS 742.502(2)(a). I am not sure that the result would be different for a self-insurer that is subject to ORS 806.”
Raynor v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 858 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2017). “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.038 . It is undisputed that the Policy does not contain a precise equivalent to § 743.”
Sanders v. Oregon Pac. States Ins., 840 P.2d 87 (Or. 1992). “ORS 742.038 provides: “(1) A policy in violation of the Insurance Code, but otherwise binding on the insurer, shall be held valid, but shall be construed as provided in the Insurance Code.”
West Am. Ins. v. Hernandez, 669 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Or. 2009). “Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.038. Insurance companies also have the option under the Code to substitute for one or more of the Insurance Code provisions corresponding provisions that are (1) approved by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services and (2) not less…”
Laird v. Allstate Ins., 221 P.3d 780 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Under ORS 742.038, a policy that does not comply with the insurance code must be construed and applied in accordance with the code.”
Fleming v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 988 P.2d 378 (Or. 1999). “However, ORS 742.038(2) provides: “Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered invalid but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such…”
Blanchard v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 901 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “706(1) provides that group health insurance policies providing hospital, medical or surgical expense benefits must include coverage for “maxillofacial prosthetic services considered necessary for adjunctive treatment.”
Williams v. Am. States Ins., 986 P.2d 1260 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “, 323 Or 291, 297-98 , 918 P2d 95 (1996); ORS 742.038(2). We follow that methodology because an insurer may provide more favorable uninsured motorist coverage than ORS 742.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.038(2): 8 cases
Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. Mowry, 261 P.3d 1 (Or. 2011). “The court, however, noted that that provision is merely an embodiment of ORS 742.038(2), which provides: "Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered…”
Collins v. Farmers Ins., 822 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1991). “[2] In this connection, note ORS 742.038(2), which states: "Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered invalid but shall be construed and applied in…”
Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 952 P.2d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “, a vehicle can logically be both “insured” and yet “underinsured.” Thus, plaintiffs reason, ORS 742.”
Fleming v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 988 P.2d 378 (Or. 1999). “However, ORS 742.038(2) provides: “Any insurance policy issued and otherwise valid which contains any condition, omission or provision not in compliance with the Insurance Code, shall not be thereby rendered invalid but shall be construed and applied in accordance with such…”
Blanchard v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Nw., 901 P.2d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “706(1) provides that group health insurance policies providing hospital, medical or surgical expense benefits must include coverage for “maxillofacial prosthetic services considered necessary for adjunctive treatment.”
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.