Portland General Electric Co. v. Ebasco Services, Inc.
248 Or. App. 91
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Portland General Electric sues Lexington Insurance under an excess-liability policy ($5 million, 16% share = $800,000 exposure).
- Complaint attached the policy but did not plead a specific monetary amount or damages tied to the policy limit.
- Plaintiff’s prayer for relief sought reimbursement for a ‘reasonable’ amount, not a specific dollar figure.
- Plaintiff served the original complaint on Mendes & Mount (agent for service) and later amended; Lexington did not receive service on the amended complaint.
- A default and limited judgment for $800,000 plus costs was entered against Lexington in January 2009; supplemental judgment followed.
- Trial court denied Lexington’s motion to set aside the default; appeal argues lack of jurisdiction and excusable neglect defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the default judgment exceed the amount prayed for in the complaint? | Montoya-based argument that attached policy shows $800,000 exposure; policy yields notice. | Complaint did not specify any monetary amount; no notice of amount; void to that extent. | Default judgment void to the extent it exceeds prayed-for amount. |
| Did amendment and service affect jurisdiction to enter default judgment? | Amendments and exhibits clarified liability; default permissible. | Amendments not properly served; service defects negate jurisdiction. | Irrelevant to affirm; jurisdiction lacking; remand for vacatur. |
| Was the denial of relief based on excusable neglect proper? | Neglect arguments preserved; timely defense raised. | Excusable neglect shown; defense warranted reconsideration. | Court reversed on jurisdictional grounds; excusable neglect not reached. |
| Should supplemental attorney-fee judgment be affected by void default judgment? | Fees awarded as consequential to default; valid after default. | Void judgment invalidates related ancillary awards. | Supplemental judgment vacated with void default holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montoya v. Housing Authority of Portland, 192 Or.App. 408 (2004) (default judgment cannot exceed the amount prayed for without notice)
- State v. Lovern, 234 Or.App. 502 (2010) (plain error standard for unpreserved jurisdictional claims)
- Hood River County v. Stevenson, 177 Or.App. 78 (2001) (jurisdictional issues may be raised on appeal)
- G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Comm'n, 201 Or.App. 362 (2005) (court may address void judgments sua sponte when jurisdiction is at stake)
- Stevenson v. Montcrieff, 177 Or.App. 81 (2001) (expounds on jurisdictional reach and notice requirements)