2017 ORS 742.240¹
Suit on policy

A fire insurance policy shall contain a provision as follows:

“No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within 24 months next after inception of the loss.” [Formerly 743.660; 1991 c.437 §1]

(formerly 743.660)

See also annota­tions under ORS 743.660 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Commence­ment of an ac­tion within the limita­tion in this sec­tion was governed by ORS 12.220 (Commencement of new action after involuntary dismissal). Hatley v. Truck Ins. Exch., 261 Or 606, 484 P2d 426, 495 P2d 1196 (1972)

Where defendant-insurers demanded appraisal under [former] ORS 743.648 to determine actual cash value of plaintiffs’ building which was destroyed by fire, ac­tion by plaintiffs, seeking determina­tion of various policy pro­vi­sion relevant to fixing amount of loss, was premature and this sec­tion, together with [former] ORS 743.648, re­quired plaintiffs to proceed with the appraisal before bringing declaratory judg­ment ac­tion. Director v. So. Carolina Ins. Co., 49 Or App 179, 619 P2d 649 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Since purpose of this sec­tion is not to be statutory limita­tion period but to be limit on ability of insurers to impose shorter limita­tion period by opera­tion of contract, ORS 12.155 (Effect of notice of advance payment on running of period of limitation) cannot toll the running of this limita­tion period. Ben Rybke, Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 293 Or 513, 651 P2d 138 (1982)

Where policy does not comply with this sec­tion, courts must construe policy to contain mandatory statutory require­ments and applicable limita­tion period is one-year period under this sec­tion. Olson v. Na­tional Indemnity Co., 112 Or App 359, 829 P2d 716 (1992)

Statutory language prevents applica­tion of discovery rule to determine date of loss. Moore v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co., 317 Or 235, 855 P2d 626 (1993)

Suit limita­tion pro­vi­sion is neither statute of limita­tions nor forfeiture of coverage. Herman v. Valley Insurance Co., 145 Or App 124, 928 P2d 985 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Insurer is not re­quired to show prejudice in order to assert suit limita­tion de­fense. Herman v. Valley Insurance Co., 145 Or App 124, 928 P2d 985 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 742—Insurance Policies Generally; Property and Casualty Policies, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors742.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 742, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano742.­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.