ORS 806.040¹
Judgments for which financial responsibility requirements established

Financial responsibility requirements are designed to provide for minimum payment of judgments of the type described in this section. When ORS 806.130 (Self-insurance), 806.140 (Certificate), 806.255 (Effect of pending action or unsatisfied judgment), 809.020 (Response to court-ordered suspension), 809.130 (Suspension or revocation of registration or driving privileges for unsettled judgment) or 809.470 (When judgment considered settled for purposes of suspension requirements) refer to judgments of the type described in this section, the reference is to a judgment that meets all of the following requirements:

(1) It must have become final by expiration, without appeal, of the time within which an appeal might have been perfected or by final affirmation on appeal.

(2) It must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction of any state or of the United States.

(3) It must be upon a cause of action for damages of the type described under subsection (4) of this section or upon a cause of action on an agreement of settlement for such damages.

(4) It must be for one or more of the following kinds of damage arising out of a motor vehicle accident on public or private property:

(a) Damages, including damages for care and loss of services, because of bodily injury to or death of any person.

(b) Damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof. [1983 c.338 §840; 1985 c.16 §424; 1987 c.258 §1; 1995 c.41 §4; 2003 c.175 §4]

Chapter 806

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes (ORS Chapter 486)

When a driver is involved in an accident that otherwise brings him within the purview of this chapter, he must thereafter file proof of future responsibility regardless of whether or not there is a reasonable possibility he was in any de­gree at fault in the accident. Boykin v. Ott, 10 Or App 210, 498 P2d 815 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, app. dis., 411 US 912, 36 L Ed 2d 304, 93 S Ct 1554

This chapter was not unconstitu­tional as denying due process or equal protec­tion of the laws under the U.S. Constitu­tion. Boykin v. Ott, 10 Or App 210, 498 P2d 815 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, app. dis., 411 US 912, 36 L Ed 2d 304, 93 S Ct 1554

This act does not require coverage for inten­tionally inflicted injuries or damages. Snyder v. Nelson/Leatherby Ins., 278 Or 409, 564 P2d 681 (1977)

Inten­tional inflic­tion of injury or damage occurs where injury or damage sustained was intended result of ac­tion. Snyder v. Nelson/Leatherby Ins., 278 Or 409, 564 P2d 681 (1977)

Motor vehicle liability policy issued pursuant to Financial Responsibility Law must provide coverage for liability arising from physical injuries to relatives of insured who reside in insured's household. Dowdy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 Or App 709, 685 P2d 444 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

In General

Financial responsibility laws generally are to ensure that drivers can respond in damages for liability and especially to ensure that motor vehicle accident victims are compensated for injuries. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Jones, 306 Or 415, 759 P2d 271 (1988)

Car insurance policy violated Financial Responsibility Law where it excluded liability coverage for permissive user's injury of insured while driving insured's car. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Jones, 306 Or 415, 759 P2d 271 (1988)

Automobile insurance policy must cover not only named insured but also must provide coverage for all per­sons who operate insured vehicle with con­sent of insured. Viking Ins. Co. v. Petersen, 308 Or 616, 784 P2d 437 (1989)

Where Financial Responsibility Law requires motor vehicle insurance policies to insure against all liability arising out of motor vehicle "ownership, opera­tion, use or maintenance," insurer's named driver policy which insurer sold to insured in connec­tion with insured's vehicle must be construed as providing coverage by law and insurer is responsible for insured's de­fense. Viking Ins. Co. v. Perotti, 308 Or 623, 784 P2d 1081 (1989)

Family exclusion pro­vi­sion of policy is ineffective only as to statutorily re­quired min­i­mum amounts; insurer may limit addi­tional coverage by any exclusion not otherwise prohibited by law. Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co., 312 Or 337, 822 P2d 1146 (1991)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Under Former Similar Statutes (ORS Chapter 486)

Financial responsibility certifica­tion date and necessary in­for­ma­­tion, (1978) Vol 38, p 1876

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statutes (ORS Chapter 486)

8 WLJ 77-84 (1972); 12 WLJ 406-412 (1976)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 806—Financial Responsibility Law, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors806.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 806, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­806ano.­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