2017 ORS 806.020¹
Exemptions from financial responsibility requirements

This section provides exemptions from the necessity for compliance with or proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements in accident reports under ORS 811.725 (Driver failure to report accident to Department of Transportation), when applying for vehicle registration under ORS 803.370 (Contents of application) or 803.460 (Certification or other proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements) and for operating a vehicle under ORS 806.010 (Driving uninsured prohibited). The owner or operator of a vehicle is exempt, as provided by this section, from financial responsibility requirements if the vehicle involved in the accident, sought to be registered or operated is any of the following:

(1) An antique vehicle issued permanent registration under ORS 805.010 (Antique vehicles).

(2) A farm trailer.

(3) A farm tractor.

(4) An implement of husbandry.

(5) A vehicle of special interest that is maintained as a collector’s item and used for exhibitions, parades, club activities and similar uses, but not used primarily for the transportation of persons or property.

(6) A snowmobile or a Class I, Class III or Class IV all-terrain vehicle, unless the vehicle is operating on an all-terrain vehicle highway access route that is designated by the Oregon Transportation Commission as open to all-terrain vehicles.

(7) Any motor vehicle not operated on any highway or premises open to the public in this state.

(8) A motor assisted scooter.

(9) An electric personal assistive mobility device. [1983 c.338 §838; 1985 c.16 §423; 1987 c.217 §4; 1989 c.991 §32; 1993 c.751 §99; 2001 c.749 §22; 2003 c.341 §5; 2009 c.257 §1; 2011 c.360 §15; 2015 c.138 §29; 2017 c.453 §8]

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); Farmers Insurance Co. v. Mowry, 350 Or 686, 261 P3d 1 (2011)

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/­ors/­ors806.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 806, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano806.­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.