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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.449 (2026)

Prohibition on assignment to high risk category on certain grounds

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

      742.449 Prohibition on assignment to high risk category on certain grounds. An insurer issuing motor vehicle liability insurance policies in this state may not assign an insured or applicant for insurance to a higher risk category than the person would otherwise be assigned to solely because the person has:

      (1) Let a prior motor vehicle liability policy lapse, unless the person was in violation of ORS 806.010 at any time after the prior policy lapsed; or

      (2) Had driving privileges suspended pursuant to ORS 809.280 (6) or (8) if the suspension is based on a nondriving offense. [1989 c.419 §2; 1991 c.860 §6; 2011 c.355 §22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2000 · leading case: Collins v. Farmers Ins., 822 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collins v. Farmers Ins., 822 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “070(2)(a); see generally ORS 742.449 et seq; ORS Chapter 806. The current statutes are used throughout this opinion.”
Viking Ins. v. Perotti, 784 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1989). “6 The motor vehicle liability insurance statutes, ORS 742.449 to 742.466, and the FRL, ORS chapter 806, provide a comprehensive scheme under which both drivers and vehicle owners are required to have liability insurance or a permissible substitute therefor.”
United Servs. Auto. Assn. v. Reilly, 858 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “He asserts, however, that the exclusion is void as contrary to Oregon’s Financial Responsibility Law (FRL), ORS chapter 806, and the motor vehicle liability insurance statutes, ORS 742.449 to ORS 742.466. 3 USAA argues that the exclusion does not conflict with FRL and should be…”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins., 9 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “However, as the Supreme Court has said: “The motor vehicle liability insurance statutes, ORS 742.449 to 742.466, and the FRL, ORS chapter 806, provide a comprehensive scheme under which both drivers and vehicle owners are required to have liability insurance or a permissible…”
Dixie Ins. v. Quesenberry, 795 P.2d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Dixie and Krantz filed cross-motions for summary judgment, 1 and the court granted Dixie’s motion. Krantz argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, because the Financial Responsibility Law (FRL), OIIS chapter 806, and the motor vehicle liability statutes,…”
Safeco Ins. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins., 9 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “However, as the Supreme Court has said: "The motor vehicle liability insurance statutes, ORS 742.449 to 742.466, and the FRL, ORS chapter 806, provide a comprehensive scheme under which both drivers and vehicle owners are required to have liability insurance or a permissible…”
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.