ORS 12.220¹
Commencement of new action after involuntary dismissal

(1) Notwithstanding ORS 12.020 (When action deemed begun), if an action is filed with a court within the time allowed by statute, and the action is involuntarily dismissed without prejudice on any ground not adjudicating the merits of the action, or is involuntarily dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the plaintiff failed to properly effect service of summons within the time allowed by ORS 12.020 (When action deemed begun) and the statute of limitations for the action expired, the plaintiff may commence a new action based on the same claim or claims against a defendant in the original action if the defendant had actual notice of the filing of the original action not later than 60 days after the action was filed.

(2) If, pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, a new action is commenced in the manner provided by ORS 12.020 (When action deemed begun) not later than 180 days after the judgment dismissing the original action is entered in the register of the court, the new action is not subject to dismissal by reason of not having been commenced within the time allowed by statute.

(3) A new action may be commenced only once under this section for the same claim or claims.

(4) All defenses that would have been available if the original action had been commenced within the time otherwise allowed by statute shall be available in a new action commenced under this section. [Amended by 1961 c.726 §397; 2003 c.296 §1]

Notes of Decisions

In General

Ac­tion brought in federal court and dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdic­tion was within saving clause of this sec­tion. Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 494 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)

The words "upon the trial" in this sec­tion include the trial of ques­tions of law as well as of fact. Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 494 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)

Limita­tion period on insurance claims re­quired by statute to be included in policy is, in effect, a statutory limita­tion. Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 494 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)

This sec­tion does not apply to ac­tion which has been dismissed after trial upon merits. Tikka v. Martin, 271 Or 287, 532 P2d 18 (1975)

When trial court dismissed pre­vi­ous claims for dilatorious pros­e­cu­­tion, one-year extension of this sec­tion did not save sub­se­quent ac­tion from being barred by res judicata. Te-Ta-Ma Truth Founda­tion v. Vaughan, 114 Or App 448, 835 P2d 938 (1992)

This sec­tion did not extend time for bringing new ac­tion based on misrepresenta­tion theory when pre­vi­ous ac­tion was based on contract and estoppel. McNeely v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 115 Or App 184, 837 P2d 546 (1992), Sup Ct review denied


Dismissal for want of jurisdic­tion of the cause, whether requiring determina­tion of issues of law alone or of issues of both law and fact, is dismissal within meaning of this sec­tion. Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 494 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)

Voluntary nonsuit granted before commence­ment of trial is not dismissal within meaning of this sec­tion. Vandermeer v. Pacific Northwest Dev. Corp., 284 Or 517, 587 P2d 98 (1978)

Party could refile case which was originally brought within proper period and dismissed without reaching merits because there was an­oth­er ac­tion pending on same cause in federal court where dismissal was upheld on ground federal court lacked jurisdic­tion of that cause and refiling occurred within one year of effective date of decision on ap­peal. Beetham v. Georgia-Pacific, 87 Or App 592, 743 P2d 755 (1987)

For dismissal of inactive case to have addi­tional consequence of preventing refiling of ac­tion because of failure to prosecute, dismissal pro­ce­dure must follow ORCP 54B (3). Moore v. Ball, Janik & Novack, 120 Or App 466, 852 P2d 937 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Reversal On Appeal

Reversal for new trial is not within purview of this sec­tion. Vandermeer v. Pacific Northwest Dev. Corp., 284 Or 517, 587 P2d 98 (1978)

To qualify for refiling after dismissal at trial or on ap­peal, trial pro­ceed­ing must have been original ac­tion rather than court review of ac­tion by different tribunal. U.S. West Communica­tions, Inc. v. Eachus, 124 Or App 325, 862 P2d 102 (1993)

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