Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court held in Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering (June 16, 2016), that a property owner must sue a contractor for negligent construction, if at all, within two years of when the property owner “knew or should have known of the injuries or damage that form the basis of their claims” under ORS 12.110(1). The ruling highlights the issue of “discovery,” and appears to be at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014), which held that a claim for conversion or replevin must be brought within six years of the time “plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the elements of such claims[.]” What does it take for a property owner to “discover” its claim?

Historically, the Supreme Court has written that claims accrue only after the potential plaintiff discovers “harm (i.e., injury), causation, and tortious conduct.” Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 255-256 (1994). The Oregon Supreme Court has held that such language requires not only knowledge of “injury” in a vacuum, but also knowledge of tortious conduct and causation for that damage. Gaston. Continue Reading The Focus is on “Discovery” of Claims after Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson, 357 Or 25, 346 P3d 468, modified, 357 Or 327 (2015). Eclectic has fundamentally affected pleadings and third-party practice in multi-party tort actions. Previously, it was standard for third-party defendants without a contractual relationship to sue each other for common law indemnity and contribution. Where liability was closely related or possibly overlapping, this was a negotiation tool and a potentially valuable claim. Not anymore. By confirming the elimination of common law indemnity for negligence claims in Oregon, the decision has prompted much argument and motion practice. Parties are now seeking to extend the reach of the several liability statute, ORS 31.610, to eliminate common law indemnity and contribution claims in other contexts.

Of recent note is Wyland v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00863-AA, 2015 WL 3657265 (D Or June 11, 2015). There, the plaintiff, a mechanic, was injured on the job when a grinder broke apart. The plaintiff sued the distributor for negligence and strict products liability, and the distributor sought indemnity from the suppliers. The suppliers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Eclectic precluded the distributor from recovering common law indemnity. The Court held that Eclectic did preclude the claim as to negligence, but not as to strict liability. The holding raises at least two issues of note. Continue Reading Oregon Federal District Court Applies Recent Developments in Common Law Indemnity to Strict Product Liability Claims