742.538
Subrogation rights of insurers to certain amounts received by injured person;
recovery actions against persons causing injury. If a motor vehicle liability
insurer has furnished personal injury protection benefits, or a health insurer
has furnished benefits, to a person who was injured in a motor vehicle accident
and the interinsurer reimbursement benefit of ORS 742.534 is not available
under the terms of that section, the insurer has not elected recovery by lien
as provided in ORS 742.536, and the insurer is entitled by the terms of the
insurer’s policy to the benefit of this section:
(1) Subject to
ORS 742.544, the insurer is entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or
judgment that results from the exercise of any rights of recovery the injured
person has against any person legally responsible for the accident, to the
extent of the benefits the insurer furnished less the insurer’s share of
expenses, costs and attorney fees the injured person incurred in connection
with the recovery.
(2) The injured
person shall hold in trust for the benefit of the insurer the amount to which
the insurer is entitled under this section, which may not exceed the amount of
benefits the insurer furnished.
(3) The injured
person shall do whatever is proper to secure, and may not prejudice, the rights
an insurer has under this section.
(4) If requested
in writing by the insurer, the injured person shall take, in the injured person’s
name and through any representative the insurer designates who is not in
conflict in interest with the injured person, such action as is necessary or
appropriate to recover the amounts to which the insurer is entitled under this
section, including amounts for the injured person’s share of expenses, costs
and attorney fees that the insurer incurred in connection with the recovery.
(5) In
calculating respective shares of expenses, costs and attorney fees under this
section, the basis of allocation must be the respective proportions borne to
the total recovery by:
(a) Benefits the
insurer furnished; and
(b) The total
recovery less the benefits the insurer furnished.
(6) The injured
person shall execute and deliver to the insurer instruments and papers as are
appropriate to secure the rights and obligations of the insurer and the injured
person as established by this section.
(7) Any
provisions in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or health insurance
policy giving rights to the insurer relating to subrogation or the subject
matter of this section must be construed and applied in accordance with the
provisions of this section. [Formerly 743.830; 2019 c.460 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Mid-Century Ins.. v. Turner, 182 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 22× “536, and ORS 742.538. Accordingly, we affirm. The pertinent facts are not in dispute; the parties submitted the controversy to the trial court pursuant to ORCP 66.”
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 49× “Defendant counterclaimed, seeking declarations that, among other things, Providence was not entitled to recover under the contract and that ORS 742.538 controlled Providence’s right to reimbursement.”
Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).
· cites it 27× “The Oregon Court of Appeals held: The phrasing of the policy unmistakably describes only subrogation [Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.538], not intercompany reimbursement, and does not show that it was intended to entitle plaintiff to the benefit of [Or.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Hale, 168 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 20× “Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company initiated this action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that defendant, its insured who had been injured in an auto accident, was required pursuant to ORS 742.538 to reimburse plaintiff for personal injury…”
Gaucin v. Farmers Ins., 146 P.3d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 13× “536, and ORS 742.538, are the only sources of authorization for PIP reimbursement.”
Cavanaugh Ex Rel. Cavanaugh v. Providence Health Plan, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Or. 2010).
· cites it 24× “536 in no way impaired Providence’s right to collect from plaintiff under the terms of the plan; and (c) Nothing in ORS 742.538 impairs the reimbursement terms of an ERISA plan, which are enforceable under federal law; Order plaintiff to hold $87,185.”
White v. Jubitz Corp., 219 P.3d 566 (Or. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, ORS 742.538 (providing insurers with right to subrogate insured's proceeds in tort actions); William M.”
Wynia v. Fick, 986 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 15× “ORS 742.538 is a part of a statutory scheme designed by the legislature to ensure that persons injured in motor vehicle accidents receive prompt payment of benefits for economic damages that they have suffered.”
Carrier v. Hicks, 851 P.2d 581 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “-504(11); ORS 742.538. [7] A provision whose ancestry may be in admiralty, not common law.”
Garrett v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 829 P.2d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “534 from the tortfeasor’s insurer, defendant was required to pay a share of the litigation costs incurred by plaintiff under ORS 742.538. ORS 742.538(1) refers to subrogation rights of insurers and provides: “The insurer is entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment…”
Bell v. Morales, 142 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “536; or otherwise, based on the insurer’s right of subrogation, ORS 742.538. Plaintiffs argument that the offer was conditional because plaintiffs complaint did not include the PIP amount as damages merely supports plaintiffs contention that Farmers did not pursue recovery by…”
Babb v. Mid-Century Ins., 821 P.2d 424 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “536; ORS 742.538. 4 Accordingly, ORS *71 742.534(1) mandates that, when an insurer seeks reimbursement from a tortfeasor’s liability insurer for PIP benefits, the PIP insurer is entitled to be reimbursed before the victim may receive anything.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(1) — 7 cases
Mid-Century Ins.. v. Turner, 182 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“536, and ORS 742.538. Accordingly, we affirm. The pertinent facts are not in dispute; the parties submitted the controversy to the trial court pursuant to ORCP 66.”
Garrett v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 829 P.2d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“534 from the tortfeasor’s insurer, defendant was required to pay a share of the litigation costs incurred by plaintiff under ORS 742.538. ORS 742.538(1) refers to subrogation rights of insurers and provides: “The insurer is entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment…”
Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).
“The Oregon Court of Appeals held: The phrasing of the policy unmistakably describes only subrogation [Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.538], not intercompany reimbursement, and does not show that it was intended to entitle plaintiff to the benefit of [Or.”
Bell v. Morales, 142 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“536; or otherwise, based on the insurer’s right of subrogation, ORS 742.538. Plaintiffs argument that the offer was conditional because plaintiffs complaint did not include the PIP amount as damages merely supports plaintiffs contention that Farmers did not pursue recovery by…”
Cavanaugh Ex Rel. Cavanaugh v. Providence Health Plan, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Or. 2010).
“536 in no way impaired Providence’s right to collect from plaintiff under the terms of the plan; and (c) Nothing in ORS 742.538 impairs the reimbursement terms of an ERISA plan, which are enforceable under federal law; Order plaintiff to hold $87,185.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(2) — 3 cases
Mid-Century Ins.. v. Turner, 182 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“536, and ORS 742.538. Accordingly, we affirm. The pertinent facts are not in dispute; the parties submitted the controversy to the trial court pursuant to ORCP 66.”
Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).
“The Oregon Court of Appeals held: The phrasing of the policy unmistakably describes only subrogation [Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.538], not intercompany reimbursement, and does not show that it was intended to entitle plaintiff to the benefit of [Or.”
Bell v. Morales, 142 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“536; or otherwise, based on the insurer’s right of subrogation, ORS 742.538. Plaintiffs argument that the offer was conditional because plaintiffs complaint did not include the PIP amount as damages merely supports plaintiffs contention that Farmers did not pursue recovery by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(3) — 2 cases
Mid-Century Ins.. v. Turner, 182 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“536, and ORS 742.538. Accordingly, we affirm. The pertinent facts are not in dispute; the parties submitted the controversy to the trial court pursuant to ORCP 66.”
Bell v. Morales, 142 P.3d 76 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“536; or otherwise, based on the insurer’s right of subrogation, ORS 742.538. Plaintiffs argument that the offer was conditional because plaintiffs complaint did not include the PIP amount as damages merely supports plaintiffs contention that Farmers did not pursue recovery by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(4) — 6 cases
Mid-Century Ins.. v. Turner, 182 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“536, and ORS 742.538. Accordingly, we affirm. The pertinent facts are not in dispute; the parties submitted the controversy to the trial court pursuant to ORCP 66.”
Wynia v. Fick, 986 P.2d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“ORS 742.538 is a part of a statutory scheme designed by the legislature to ensure that persons injured in motor vehicle accidents receive prompt payment of benefits for economic damages that they have suffered.”
Gaucin v. Farmers Ins., 146 P.3d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“536, and ORS 742.538, are the only sources of authorization for PIP reimbursement.”
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Defendant counterclaimed, seeking declarations that, among other things, Providence was not entitled to recover under the contract and that ORS 742.538 controlled Providence’s right to reimbursement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(5) — 1 case
Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).
“The Oregon Court of Appeals held: The phrasing of the policy unmistakably describes only subrogation [Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.538], not intercompany reimbursement, and does not show that it was intended to entitle plaintiff to the benefit of [Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.538(7) — 2 cases
Providence Health Plan v. Winchester, 288 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Defendant counterclaimed, seeking declarations that, among other things, Providence was not entitled to recover under the contract and that ORS 742.538 controlled Providence’s right to reimbursement.”
Powell v. Sys. Transp. Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D. Or. 2015).
“The Oregon Court of Appeals held: The phrasing of the policy unmistakably describes only subrogation [Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.538], not intercompany reimbursement, and does not show that it was intended to entitle plaintiff to the benefit of [Or.”
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.