Murphy v. All-State

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-25-2012
  • Case #: A145874
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Duncan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The question of whether a claim for fraud against an insurance company is time barred pursuant to ORS 12.110(1), or whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on the statements, or whether there was a special relationship, is a fact intensive inquiry that ought to be made by a jury.

Petitioner Larry Murphy (Murphy) appealed the trial court's judgement. Murphy owned a residential rental property which suffered substantial water damage, in 2007. Murphy filed a claim with defendant, All-State Insurance (All-State), who agreed to pay for the repairs. Murphy was told by both the All-State representative, and the repair contractor, that he did not need to acquire new building permits. After the property was repaired, Murphy received notice that his property violated city building codes because it had been constructed without building permits. Murphy sued All-State for fraud. The trial court granted All-State summary judgment holding that: Murphy's claim were time barred by the statute of limitations; there was insufficient proof of Murphy's reliance on the statements; and that Murphy failed to establish a special relationship between All-State and himself. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment on all three grounds holding that there were existing facts that should be resolved by a jury. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search