793 F.Supp.3d 1283
D. Or.2025Background
- Plaintiff Richard Hayter was involved in an accident with an uninsured driver and filed an uninsured motorist (UM) claim under two policies with Travelers and its subsidiaries, seeking up to $1.5 million in coverage.
- Following disputes over the claim's value, the parties proceeded to arbitration under the terms of the UM policy.
- The arbitration panel awarded Hayter $5.5 million; Travelers paid out policy limits shortly thereafter.
- Hayter then sued Travelers for negligent claim handling, alleging violations of Oregon's unfair claim settlement practices statute (ORS 746.230) and seeking $28.5 million for emotional distress.
- Travelers moved for summary judgment, arguing Hayter could not show a statutory violation or negligence as a matter of law.
- The court reviewed the evidentiary objections, claim handling process, and arguments under both statutory and common law negligence frameworks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to acknowledge UM umbrella policy | Travelers did not inform him of full UM coverage | Travelers timely acknowledged and accepted coverage | No genuine dispute; Travelers acted reasonably |
| Failure to timely respond to settlement demands | Travelers was late or failed to respond in good faith | Timely and reasonably responded, promptly paid outcome | No evidence of bad faith or unreasonable conduct |
| Undervaluing the UM claim (settlement offer) | Travelers' offer far below arbitration award, compelled suit | Disagreement about value not refusal, good faith basis | Hindsight not enough; no unreasonable undervaluing |
| Failure to advance undisputed payment | Did not pay what was clearly owed before arbitration | No undisputed sums were established, thus not owed | No requirement or violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or. 772 (Or. 2023) (addressed when negligence per se claims for emotional distress are permitted for insurer's statutory violations)
- Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (Or. 1987) (articulates core Oregon law negligence test: foreseeable risk to a protected interest)
- Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or. 706 (Or. 1986) (evidence aided by hindsight is insufficient to establish negligence)
- Ransom v. Radiology Specialists of Nw., 363 Or. 552 (Or. 2018) (hindsight evidence may be excluded at trial)
- Jones v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 266 Or. 513 (Or. 1973) (negligence not to be judged using hindsight)