Williamson v. Government Employees Insurance
270 P.3d 260
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Erin Williamson appeals a supplemental judgment denying attorney fees after arbitration.
- Arbitrator denied fees under ORS 20.080, ruling money had and received is not an injury to person or property and not a tort-like statutory claim.
- Williamson argued ORS 20.080 broadly covers claims and that money had and received falls within it; she offered no alternative fee basis at arbitration.
- Trial court sustained the arbitrator’s denial and rejected Williamson’s attempt to invoke ORS 20.082 in the trial court.
- On appeal, the issues are whether ORS 20.080 covers money had and received (and whether 20.082 applies) and whether ORS 36.425(6) permits new grounds not raised at arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ORS 20.080 cover money had and received? | Williamson argues 20.080 broadly applies to all actions. | G E I C contends 20.080 excludes contract-based claims, including money had and received. | No; 20.080 does not apply, money had and received is contract-implied in law and governed by 20.082. |
| Should money had and received be governed by ORS 20.082? | Williamson did not raise 20.082 before arbitrator; she argues it can be reviewed on appeal. | 20.082 governs contract claims; deliberate raising before arbitrator is required for review. | Yes; the claim falls under 20.082 and must be analyzed there, but not via 20.080. |
| May the trial court consider a new basis (20.082) under ORS 36.425(6) after arbitration? | She should be allowed to invoke 20.082 in court. | 36.425(6) limits review to grounds actually raised before the arbitrator. | No; 36.425(6) review is limited to grounds asserted before arbitration; cannot add new grounds. |
| What is the proper scope of ORS 36.425(6) review when the arbitrator denied fees on a correct legal ground? | The court should examine all possible fee theories, including 20.082. | If the arbitrator correctly denied fees on a given ground, review ends there. | The arbitrator’s legal ground was correct; the trial court properly denied fees on exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. City of St. Paul, 178 Or.App. 312, 36 P.3d 513 (2001) (20.080 limited to tort-like exceptions; money had and received not within its scope)
- Staley v. Taylor, 165 Or.App. 256, 994 P.2d 1220 (2000) (implied contracts include implied-in-fact and implied-in-law concepts)
- Briggs v. Lamvik, 242 Or.App. 132, 255 P.3d 518 (2011) (money had and received grounded in contract implied in law)
- Rymer v. Zwingli, 240 Or.App. 687, 247 P.3d 1246 (2011) (standard of review for attorney-fee award decisions)
- Foust v. American Standard Ins. Co., 189 Or.App. 125, 74 P.3d 1111 (2003) (subsection (6) review limits to whether arbitrator correctly applied the law)