ORS 12.155¹
Effect of notice of advance payment on running of period of limitation

(1) If the person who makes an advance payment referred to in ORS 31.560 (Advance payment for death or personal injury not admission of liability) or 31.565 (Advance payment for property damage not admission of liability) gives to each person entitled to recover damages for the death, injury or destruction, not later than 30 days after the date the first of such advance payments was made, written notice of the date of expiration of the period of limitation for the commencement of an action for damages set by the applicable statute of limitations, then the making of any such advance payment does not suspend the running of such period of limitation. The notice required by this subsection shall be in such form as the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services prescribes.

(2) If the notice required by subsection (1) of this section is not given, the time between the date the first advance payment was made and the date a notice is actually given of the date of expiration of the period of limitation for the commencement of an action for damages set by the applicable statute of limitations is not part of the period limited for commencement of the action by the statute of limitations. [1971 c.331 §5; 1981 c.892 §85b]

Notes of Decisions

Advance pay­ment by an insurer for prop­erty damage, made without giving notice of the expira­tion date for per­sonal injury claim arising out of the same accident, suspends the opera­tion of the statute of limita­tions as to the per­sonal injury claim. Duncan v. Dubin, 276 Or 631, 556 P2d 105 (1976)

"Statute of limita­tions" does not include contractually limited period for bringing ac­tion on insurance policy re­quired by ORS 743.660 (renumbered ORS 742.240 (Suit on policy)). Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 293 Or 513, 651 P2d 138 (1982)

Insurer's advance pay­ments and waiver of statute of limita­tions did not create duty to give notice of end of waiver period and was not enough to lull plaintiff into false sense of security so as to estop de­fense of statute of limita­tions. Johnson v. Kentner, 71 Or App 61, 691 P2d 499 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Legislative purpose of protecting injured per­sons from being lulled into false sense of security by advance pay­ment contemplates notice of limita­tions period only to per­son for whose direct benefit the advance pay­ment is made. Sheppard v. Weekly, 72 Or App 86, 695 P2d 53 (1985)

This sec­tion, which requires per­son making advance pay­ment before determining tort liability to give written notice of when applicable statute of limita­tions will run, is not applicable to Personal Injury Protec­tion pay­ments made under ORS 743.800 (renumbered ORS 742.520 (Personal injury protection benefits for motor vehicle liability policies)). Smith v. Riker, 88 Or App 579, 746 P2d 247 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Where tortfeasor's insurance company, after making advance pay­ment to claimant, fails to give claimant notice of expira­tion date of limita­tion period pursuant to this sec­tion, but where claimant is represented by counsel and files suit against insurer within applicable limita­tion period, this sec­tion's notice and tolling pro­vi­sions do not apply because no one failed to act by being lulled into false belief that statute of limita­tions would not run. Dotson v. Smith, 307 Or 132, 764 P2d 540 (1988)

Where insurer made advance pay­ment to plaintiff without giving notice of date on which statute of limita­tions would run, limita­tions period was tolled. Pipkin v. Zimmer, 113 Or App 737, 833 P2d 1350 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where insurer of defendant made advance pay­ment to plaintiff but did not provide plaintiff with notice of when statute of limita­tions expires, statute of limita­tions is tolled from day plaintiff received advance pay­ment until day ac­tion is commenced. Baker v. Kennedy, 317 Or 372, 856 P2d 314 (1993)

Advance pay­ment does not toll statute of limita­tions outside setting of third-party claims against insurers. Minisce v. Thompson, 149 Or App 746, 945 P2d 582 (1997)

Where there are multiple potential defendants, tolling of statute of limita­tions between time of advance pay­ment and time of giving notice of expira­tion date of applicable limita­tion period is defendant-specific. Blanton v. Beiswenger, 195 Or App 335, 97 P3d 1247 (2004)

Person making advance pay­ment need not be insurer. Hamilton v. Paynter, 342 Or 48, 149 P3d 131 (2006)

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/­012.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 12, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­012ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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.
Currency Information