2017 ORS 646A.580¹
Cost of coverage
  • billing requirements
  • remission to insurer or supervising entity
  • funds held in trust
  • compensation

(1) A vendor policyholder may bill and collect the cost of portable electronics insurance coverage purchased by an enrolled customer. Any charge to the enrolled customer for coverage that is not included in the cost to the enrolled customer to purchase or lease portable electronics must be separately itemized in writing. If the coverage is included with the purchase or lease of portable electronics, whether or not the coverage is included in the cost to the enrolled customer of the purchase or lease of the portable electronics, the vendor policyholder shall clearly and conspicuously disclose in writing to the enrolled customer that the coverage is included with the purchase or lease of the portable electronics.

(2) If authorized by an insurer or a supervising entity, a vendor policyholder that bills and collects the cost of portable electronics insurance coverage from an enrolled customer is not required to deposit the amount paid in a segregated account but shall remit the amount collected to the insurer or the supervising entity within 60 days of receipt from the enrolled customer.

(3) Moneys collected by a vendor policyholder from an enrolled customer for the cost of portable electronics insurance coverage are funds held by the vendor policyholder in trust for the benefit of the insurer or the supervising entity.

(4) A vendor policyholder may receive compensation from an insurer or a supervising entity for billing and collecting the cost of portable electronics insurance coverage purchased by enrolled customers.

(5) Vendor policyholders, insurers and supervising entities are not subject to ORS 744.083 (Trust account for premium funds) and 744.084 (Certificate of deposit in lieu of trust account). [2011 c.393 §3]

Law Review Cita­tions

52 WLR 451 (2016)

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condi­tion requiring repair, presump­tion does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 329 (1983)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646A—Trade Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646A.­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.