Portland General Electric Co. v. Ebasco Services, Inc.
306 P.3d 628
| Or. | 2013Background
- PGE sued Lexington and other insurers for breach of indemnity, seeking recovery related to a settlement of underlying asbestos claims; Lexington’s exposure was up to $800,000 (16% of $5 million policy).
- PGE’s complaint did not specify a monetary amount demanded; the policy exhibit showed $800,000 as Lexington’s share, and PGE alleged breach but prayed for reimbursement of the settlement amount and related fees.
- Lexington was served but did not appear; in 2009 the court entered a default against Lexington for $800,000 plus costs and fees.
- Lexington moved to set aside the default under ORCP 71 on grounds of excusable neglect; the trial court denied the motion and entered a supplemental judgment for costs and attorney fees.
- Court of Appeals held the default void under ORCP 67 C because the complaint did not state a specific amount of damages, remanding for further proceedings.
- Supreme Court held ORCP 67 C was violated but not voiding the entire judgment; remanded to address Lexington’s remaining challenges and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment violated ORCP 67 C by not stating a specific amount of damages | PGE contends the notice and the attached policy informed Lexington of the damages and that ORCP 67 C does not render the judgment voidable here. | Lexington argues the lack of a stated amount in the pleadings makes the default void for lack of proper notice and due process. | ORCP 67 C violated, but not void; collateral challenge barred given prejudgment opportunities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dabney, 246 Or 14 (1967) (due process notice may render a judgment void if defective to the point of lacking jurisdiction)
- Scarth v. Scarth, 211 Or 121 (1957) (due process requires notice for modification of obligations; lack of notice can render action void)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Staiger, 157 Or 143 (1937) (void vs. voidable distinctions; collateral attack limitations when relief exceeds pleadings)
- Montoya v. Housing Authority of Portland, 192 Or App 408 (2004) (ORCP 67 C damages-notice defect can render judgment void; but alternatives exist where notice is insufficient)
- Ebasco Services, Inc. v. PGE, 248 Or App 91 (2012) (Court of Appeals held default void for lack of amount pleaded under ORCP 67 C)