2017 ORS 12.150¹
Suspension of running of statute by absence or concealment

If, when a cause of action accrues against any person, the person is out of the state and service cannot be made within the state or the person is concealed therein, such action may be commenced within the applicable period of limitation in this chapter after the return of the person into the state, or after the termination of the concealment of the person; and if, after a cause of action has accrued against a person, the person shall depart from and reside out of this state, or if the person is concealed therein, the time of the absence or concealment of the person shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of such action. [Amended by 1973 c.206 §1; 1987 c.158 §4]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion did not toll limita­tion period of ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract) where defendant foreign corpora­tion could have been served under [former] ORS 57.700. Santos v. The Flxible Co. Inc., 41 Or App 89, 597 P2d 373 (1979)

This sec­tion did not toll limita­tion period in ORS 12.020 (When action deemed begun) where defendant foreign corpora­tion could have been served under long arm statute. Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Avia­tion Corpora­tion, 813 F2d 272 (1987)

Statute of limita­tions was tolled when defendant left Oregon and resided out of state after cause of ac­tion accrued and fact that defendant may have been amenable to service is not excep­tion to tolling. Gary M. Buford and Associates, Inc. v. Guillory, 98 Or App 691, 780 P2d 783 (1989), Sup Ct review denied. But see Wright v. Osborne, 151 Or App 466, 949 P2d 321 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Limita­tion period is not tolled by absence of defendant from state or by conceal­ment where substituted service on state agency is available. Wright v. Osborne, 151 Or App 466, 949 P2d 321 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Where plaintiff filed ac­tion against defendant more than six years after claims accrued but defendant moved out of state after claims accrued and before plaintiff filed ac­tion, ORCP 4 permits plaintiff to serve defendant out of state for purposes of litigating in-state claims and plaintiff’s ac­tion was timely filed. Knappenberger v. Davis-Stanton, 271 Or App 14, 351 P3d 54 (2015)

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.