The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Oregon is dispensing poetic justice to prod more motorists to purchase required insurance coverage. A 1999 law denies “pain and suffering” damages to motorists who do not have automobile insurance. Florida should take a closer look at the Oregon statute to see if it can improve the uninsured motorist situation on its highways.

Way to go, Oregon! Blogger M Valentine posts an article that shows us how Oregon is prodding more motorists to purchase required insurance coverage.

Florida should take a closer look at the Oregon statute to see if it can improve the uninsured motorist situation on its highways. According to the article there is a unique “gotcha” for any motorist in Oregon who fails to have required automobile insurance when the motorist seeks damages in an automobile accident claim. The uninsured motorist seeking compensation receives poetic justice instead of just compensation. He is denied the right to any damages for his pain and suffering. Ouch! But maybe there will be fewer uninsured drivers on the roads.

Oregon Supreme Court Denies Uninsured Motorist Damage Claim

A divided Oregon Supreme Court yesterday upheld a 1999 law denying “pain and suffering” damages to motorists who do not have automobile insurance. The high court’s 4-3 decision found the legislature’s effort to punish driving without insurance was both constitutional and consistent with practices from the founding of the state. The court ruled that Elisa Lawson was not entitled to recover $5,790 in non-economic damages because she made a choice to violate Oregon law by driving without coverage. “Indeed, it lay entirely within this plaintiff’s control to be fully qualified to be awarded all damages arising out of the kind of harm that she suffered,” the court held.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest