2017 ORS 806.245¹
Termination of future responsibility filing requirement
  • reasons

A termination of the requirement to maintain a future responsibility filing does not remove a person’s responsibility to comply with financial responsibility requirements. The Department of Transportation shall terminate requirements for a future responsibility filing when any of the following occurs:

(1) The person on whose behalf the filing was made dies.

(2) More than three years have passed from the date the filing was required.

(3) A person on whose behalf the filing was made requests termination and either:

(a) The person was required to file because of an error committed by the department; or

(b) The person was required to file because of an error committed by an insurance company in notifying the department regarding the correctness of a certification under ORS 806.150 (Department verification program).

(4) A person who was required to file because of failure to respond to a department demand under ORS 806.160 (Demand for proof of compliance) requests termination and the department determines either:

(a) That the person was in fact in compliance with financial responsibility requirements as of the date of the department’s letter of verification under ORS 806.150 (Department verification program); or

(b) That the person reasonably and in good faith believed that the person was in compliance with financial responsibility requirements on the date of the department’s letter of verification.

(5) A person who was required to file because of failure to prove under ORS 806.210 (Exemption from requirement to file after accident) that the person was in compliance with financial responsibility requirements requests termination and the department determines either:

(a) That the person was in fact in compliance with financial responsibility requirements at the time of the accident; or

(b) That the person reasonably and in good faith believed that the person was in compliance with financial responsibility requirements at the time of the accident.

(6) A person’s hardship permit expires and the filing was required only for issuance of the hardship permit under ORS 807.240 (Hardship permit). [1987 c.258 §4; 2009 c.257 §7]

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.