2017 ORS 12.080¹
Action on certain contracts or liabilities

(1) An action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.070 (Action on judgment, decree or sealed instrument), 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract) and 12.135 (Action for damages from construction, alteration or repair of improvement to real property) and except as otherwise provided in ORS 72.7250 (Statute of limitations in contracts for sale);

(2) An action upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract);

(3) An action for waste or trespass upon or for interference with or injury to any interest of another in real property, excepting those mentioned in ORS 12.050 (Action to recover real property), 12.060 (Suit or action on land contracts), 12.135 (Action for damages from construction, alteration or repair of improvement to real property), 12.137 (Action for loss of or damage to property arising from nuclear incident) and 273.241 (Action to recover damages for unlawful removal of material); or

(4) An action for taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, excepting an action mentioned in ORS 12.137 (Action for loss of or damage to property arising from nuclear incident);

shall be commenced within six years. [Amended by 1957 c.374 §3; 1961 c.726 §396; 1973 c.363 §1; 1983 c.437 §2; 1987 c.705 §3; 1991 c.968 §2]

Notes of Decisions

In General

Where legally blind plaintiff brought cause of ac­tion two years after discovering conversion of belongings but nine years after conversion took place, plaintiff commenced ac­tion in timely manner under this sec­tion because discovery rule, which provides that cause of ac­tion accrues when plaintiff obtained or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of tort, applies to this sec­tion. Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721, 320 P3d 554 (2014)

This sec­tion applies to ac­tions for in­ter­fer­ence with or injury to “interest” in real prop­erty, not to ac­tions for damage to prop­erty itself, which are subject to two-year limita­tion period under ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract) and not six-year limita­tion period under this sec­tion. Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 359 Or 694, 375 P3d 463 (2016)

Ac­tion Upon A Contract or Liability, Express or Implied

An ac­tion against an insurer under an uninsured motorist clause in the policy is governed by the contract pro­vi­sion of this sec­tion. Turlay v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 259 Or 612, 488 P2d 406 (1971)

An ac­tion for indemnity is based upon an implied contract and is governed by this sec­tion. Owings v. Rose, 262 Or 247, 497 P2d 1183 (1972)

An ac­tion in federal court for fraud or misrepresenta­tion under S.E.C. Rule 10b-5 is not governed by this sec­tion. Hoffert v. E.F. Hinkle & Co., Inc., 56 FRD 395 (1972)

This sec­tion and not [former] ORS 76.1110, applies to contracts for the pay­ment of wages when the original obligor on such contract has sold the assets of his business to an­oth­er. State ex rel Nilsen v. Ben Jacques Chev. Buick, Inc., 16 Or App 552, 520 P2d 366 (1974)

The tort ac­tion against a Kansas airplane manufacturer on account of a Washington accident was not barred where filed three months after the accident. Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 520 F2d 608 (1975)

An ac­tion to recover from a surety or a supersedeas bond, when based on the undertaking rather than on a judg­ment, is barred after six years. Friedman v. Doak, 276 Or 1001, 557 P2d 237 (1976)

Legislature intended six year statute of limita­tions to apply to all contracts not specifically excepted, and thus this sec­tion applied to ac­tion for breach of express warranty against seller of apart­ments and glass company, which contracted to repair defective windows. Portland Hous. Auth. v. Ash Nat’l, 36 Or App 391, 584 P2d 776 (1978)

Where gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was failure of defendant to abide by its express contractual duty to alleviate unsatisfactory condi­tions as might appear during 2-year guarantee period, complaint sounded in contract and limita­tion period of this sec­tion governed. Amfac Foods v. Fred Snyder Roofing, 43 Or App 107, 602 P2d 321 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Whether ac­tion for viola­tion of agree­ment is tort or contract claim depends on whether agree­ment refers only to general standard of care applicable or sets forth particular standards to be followed. Securities-Intermountain v. Sunset Fuel, 289 Or 243, 611 P2d 1158 (1980); Dauven v. St. Vincent Hospital, 130 Or App 584, 883 P2d 241 (1994)

Ac­tions for federal civil rights viola­tions are subject to limita­tion applicable to liability created by statute, not to limita­tion applicable to tort ac­tions. Clark v. Musick, 623 F2d 89 (1981); Plummer v. Western Interna­tional Hotels, 656 F2d 502 (1981)

Ac­tion for depriva­tion of civil rights alleging harass­ment by local govern­ment entities was controlled by two-year statute of limita­tions of Tort Claims Act. Kosikowski v. Bourne, 659 F2d 105 (1981)

Limita­tion period of this sec­tion governs ac­tions for damages by purchaser against builder-seller of house for amounts necessary to remedy defects in construc­tion of house. Beveridge v. King, 292 Or 771, 643 P2d 332 (1982)

In ac­tion for employ­ment discrimina­tion under 42 U.S.C. 1981, controlling limita­tion period was that of this sec­tion, not ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract). Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc., 726 F2d 1346 (1984)

Where ac­tion was in contract, although claimed breach sounded in fraud or deceit, that is, in tort, ac­tion was timely where filed two and one-half years after cause of ac­tion was discovered. Erickson Hardwood Co. v. North Pacific Lumber, 70 Or App 557, 690 P2d 1071 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

In ac­tion by union to compel arbitra­tion of grievance, six-month limita­tion period under Na­tional Labor Rela­tions Act applies, rather than six year period under this sec­tion. Millmen’s Union Local No. 1120 v. Pay Less Drug, 589 F Supp 675 (1984)

Where rela­tionship is between contracting parties and claim alleges neg­li­gent performance of contract, ac­tion must be brought as contract claim unless independent standard of care is es­tab­lished. Marinelli v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Or App 268, 696 P2d 1 (1985), Sup Ct review denied; Georgetown Realty v. The Home Insurance Company, 313 Or 97, 831 P2d 7 (1992)

Because [former] ORS 237.075 creates contract between public employees and state, this sec­tion provides statute of limita­tions for alleged viola­tions of that contract. Alderson v. State of Oregon, 105 Or App 574, 806 P2d 142 (1991)

Where account or account stated claim involves underlying sale of goods, UCC 4-year statute of limita­tions for contract claims under ORS 72.7250 (Statute of limitations in contracts for sale) applies rather than 6-year period of this statute. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Hall, 113 Or App 30, 830 P2d 606 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Statute of limita­tions for breach of fiduciary duty depends on whether basis of claim is contractual or non-contractual. Assn. of Unit Owners v. Far West Federal Bank, 120 Or App 125, 852 P2d 218 (1993)

Ac­tion for abate­ment of purchase price and restitu­tion of monies paid on sales agree­ment was equitable claim not subject to statute of limita­tions. Assn. of Unit Owners v. Far West Federal Bank, 120 Or App 125, 852 P2d 218 (1993)

Complaint seeking royalties for product made by defendant using plaintiff’s idea was ac­tion for breach of contract, not tort of misappropria­tion of ideas. Jaqua v. Nike, Inc., 125 Or App 294, 865 P2d 442 (1993)

Limita­tion period es­tab­lished by this sec­tion is default period, applicable absent different limita­tion period specified by contract. Reedsport School District No. 105 v. Gulf Insurance Co., 210 Or App 679, 152 P3d 988 (2007)

Excep­tion to dura­tion of statute of limita­tions for construc­tion defect claims is limited to ac­tions against professionals that are listed in pro­vi­sion that sets statute of limita­tions for those claims. Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499, 198 P3d 445 (2008)

Injury to Interest of Another In Real Property

Financial injury incurred by plaintiffs because they purchased residence in reliance on defendant’s inspec­tion which failed to disclose the existence of dry rot was not an injury to prop­erty. Morrison v. Ardee Pest Control, 62 Or App 506, 661 P2d 576 (1983)

In ac­tion for damages on alleged oral contract to perform certain architectural services, allega­tions of injuries were those to “any interest of an­oth­er in real prop­erty” and this sec­tion was applicable period of limita­tion. Taylor v. Settecase, 69 Or App 222, 685 P2d 470 (1984)

Ac­tion against defendant builder alleging breach of implied obliga­tion to perform construc­tion in workmanlike manner is ac­tion for injury to interest in real prop­erty. Sutter v. Bingham, 81 Or App 16, 724 P2d 829 (1986)

Ac­tions As to Personalty

Where lessor damaged own prop­erty, resulting economic loss to lessee was not injury to per­sonal prop­erty. Port of Portland v. Brady-Hamilton, 62 Or App 92, 659 P2d 995 (1983)

When Statute Commences to Run

Cause of ac­tion for breach of a divorce prop­erty settle­ment agree­ment to maintain life insurance did not accrue until the death of obligor. Carothers v. Carothers, 260 Or 99, 488 P2d 1185 (1971)

Where plaintiff’s complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute fraudulent conceal­ment of the cause of ac­tion the statute is tolled until discovery or reasonable opportunity of discovery of the fact. Chaney v. Fields Chev. Co., 264 Or 21, 503 P2d 1239 (1972)

Note payable “on demand after date” becomes due and payable without demand on the day after its date; statute of limita­tions begins to run from that day. Culver v. Andres, 26 Or App 809, 554 P2d 541 (1976)

A promissory note payable “on demand” is due immediately without an actual demand, and the statute of limita­tions commences to run against the note from the date of its execu­tion and delivery. Culver v. Andres, 26 Or App 809, 554 P2d 541 (1976)

This sec­tion applied to overcharges of city under wa­ter service contract. Aspgren v. City of Columbia City, 34 Or App 991, 581 P2d 536 (1978)

Where goods were damaged during ship­ment by carrier, and buyer never received bill of lading, buyer was not aware of and could not be bound by clause in bill of lading es­tab­lishing two year statute of limita­tions. Lord Electric Co. v. Pacific Intermountain Express, 282 Or 335, 578 P2d 776 (1978)

Ac­tion against former owners of abutting prop­erty for trespass and nuisance resulting from erosion of earth embank­ment onto plaintiff’s prop­erty was barred because owners had not commenced ac­tion within six-year statute of limita­tions and statute was not tolled on theory that trespass was continuing tort. Denora v. Fischer Eng., 55 Or App 448, 638 P2d 490 (1982)

Where FDIC brought ac­tion against former of­fi­cers and directors of three banks which merged into bank later declared insolvent alleging viola­tion of federal statutes and regula­tions prohibiting loans to of­fi­cers and directors, since claim was common law tort claim, three-year statute of limita­tions applied not six-year contract limita­tion. FDIC v. Former of­fi­cers and Dir. of Metro. Bank, 705 F Supp 505 (D. Or. 1987)

Where rent was based on percentage of annual receipts from crops grown and total accounting was due “once all crops for that year have been sold,” plaintiff’s conten­tion that his right to pay­ment did not accrue until crops were sold was supported by language of contract and con­duct of parties. Obrist v. Aylett, 99 Or App 99, 781 P2d 381 (1989)

Each annual decision not to promote employee constituted separate alleged breach of employ­ment contract with separate statute of limita­tions period. Bohm v. Oregon Institute of Technology, 126 Or App 281, 868 P2d 1344 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

52 OLR 92 (1972)

Chapter 12

Notes of Decisions

An ac­tion for per­sonal injuries caused by breach of implied warranty is clearly one for which “different limita­tion is prescribed by statute” under ORS 12.010 (Time of commencing actions) and thus is not governed by pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 512 P2d 776 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 12—Limitations of Actions and Suits, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors012.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 12, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano012.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.