Williams v. SALEM WOMEN'S CLINIC
245 Or. App. 476
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Lara Williams sued SWC alleging SWC breached her employment contract by failing to provide unlimited tail insurance.
- SWC filed a third-party complaint against former practice manager David Barlow claiming breach of contract and related duties if Williams’ representations were true.
- During discovery and at summary judgment, there were disputes over what Barlow had told Williams about tail coverage duration.
- The circuit court ruled in Williams’ favor finding she had a right to unlimited tail coverage and dismissed SWC’s third-party breach claim.
- Barlow moved for attorney fees under ORS 20.105 and for an enhanced prevailing party fee under ORS 20.190; the trial court granted them in supplemental judgments.
- This court reversed the attorney fee award as to SWC and vacated/remanded the enhanced fee, directing reconsideration under the correct standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SWC had an objectively reasonable basis for its third-party breach claim | SWC had some basis from Williams’ pleadings that Barlow made representations about tail coverage. | Record lacked any basis; the claim was entirely devoid of support as litigation progressed. | Not entirely devoid; ORS 20.105(1) not satisfied; fees reversed. |
| Whether the enhanced prevailing party fee under ORS 20.190 was appropriate | Because the base claim had an objective basis, enhanced fees should not apply. | Enhanced fee should apply if the claim was not objectively reasonable and appropriate factors met. | Vacated and remanded for reconsideration consistent with not applying an enhanced fee given the not entirely devoid basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Howard, 237 Or.App. 256 (2010) (defining 'entirely devoid' standard for ORS 20.105(1))
- Dimeo v. Gesik, 197 Or.App. 560 (2005) (timing and evolution of basis for claims)
- Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or.App. 467 (2007) (personal motivation immaterial to ORS 20.105(1))
- Secor Investments, LLC v. Anderegg, 188 Or.App. 154 (2003) (bad faith not relevant to ORS 20.105(1) entitlement factors)
- Morasch v. Hood, 232 Or.App. 392 (2009) (use of ORS 20.075 factors in discretionary fee decisions)
- Lenn v. Bottem, 221 Or.App. 241 (2008) (objective reasonableness standard linked to ORS 20.190(3))