Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson, 354 P.3d 678

Jackson County sought common-law indemnity from contractor in a negligence case; trial court denied, Court of Appeals affirmed, and Supreme Court granted reconsideration and modified its prior ruling.
Court applied Oregon comparative negligence framework under ORS 31.610 and held a severally liable verdict defeats common-law indemnity as inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
ORS 31.800(5) preserves indemnity rights but does not override ORS 31.610’s allocation of fault; contribution does not convert to indemnity.
County argued for independent recovery for attorney fees under indemnity; court ruled no independent fees when restitution claim is not viable.
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified but adhered to, distinguishing facts from Astoria and reinforcing the statutory framework governing indemnity and contribution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 31.610 precludes common-law indemnity	Eclectic: indemnity still viable despite fault-based scheme	Indemnity unnecessary under severable liability	Indemnity not justified under ORS 31.610
Effect of ORS 31.800(5) on indemnity rights	Indemnity rights survive alongside contribution	31.800(5) does not revive indemnity	31.800(5) does not alter the conclusion; indemnity remains unnecessary
Attorney fees as independent indemnity recovery	Fees may be recoverable under indemnity	No independent fee claim when restitution not viable	No independent attorney-fee indemnity claim
Necessity and impact of reconsideration	Reconsideration warranted to address omitted analysis		Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to

Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson, 357 Or 25 (Oregon 2015) (principles: when ORS 31.610 applies, common-law indemnity is not justified; ORS 31.800(5) preserved but does not change)
Astoria v. Astoria & Columbia River R. Co., 67 Or 538 (Or. 1913) (city permit timing differed; supports distinguishing facts)