Get the fair value you deserve for your totaled vehicle in Oregon

Oregon regulates first-party automobile total losses through five layered authorities: the Vehicle Appraiser Certificate program at ORS 819.480 (administered by the Oregon DMV; mandatory certificate to act as a vehicle appraiser, with ORS 819.482 making unlicensed appraisal a Class A violation), the appraisal-clause statute at ORS 742.466 (governs disputes over physical damage coverage and ties the appraiser-of-record role to the Vehicle Appraiser Certificate or another state's vehicle appraiser certificate or license), the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices statute at ORS 746.230 (no private right of action standing alone — Farris v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 284 Or. 453 (1978)), the implementing claim-handling regulations at OAR 836-080-0220 through -0240, and Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon, 350 Or. 336 (2011), which affirmed a class judgment over a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced personal injury protection (PIP) payments for medical expenses. The Vehicle Appraiser Certificate requirement gates the appraisal-clause appraiser role; SecondAppraisal Inc supplies the market research and valuation analysis a certified appraiser may rely on, rather than serving as the appraiser of record. ORS 819.480 — Vehicle Appraiser Certificate Program. The statute has the Oregon Department of Transportation (DMV) issue vehicle appraiser certificates under rules that provide a method of ascertaining applicants' qualifications and competence. ORS 742.466 requires an independent appraisal under that section to be performed by a holder of this certificate or of another state's vehicle appraiser certificate or license. ORS 819.482 makes acting as a vehicle appraiser without the certificate a Class A violation, subject to fines up to $2,000 per offense — BUT ORS 819.482(2)(c) expressly exempts insurance adjusters authorized under ORS 744.515 or 744.521 from the certificate requirement, along with vehicle dealers operating in their dealer capacity, qualified out-of-state appraisers, and real-estate-licensed appraisers of manufactured structures. An ORS 819.480 certificate, or another state's vehicle appraiser certificate or license, is therefore required for the named appraiser under the appraisal-clause role; the certificate is NOT categorically required for adjusters acting in the ordinary scope of adjuster licensure. ORS 742.466 — Appraisal of Disputes over Physical Damage Coverage. The statute provides that when a dispute arises between the insurer and the insured concerning physical damage coverage under a motor vehicle insurance policy, the policy's appraisal provision applies, and an independent appraisal conducted under this section must be performed by a person who holds a vehicle appraiser certificate issued under ORS 819.480 or a vehicle appraiser certificate or license issued by another state or government body. The statute integrates the certificate-licensing regime directly into the appraisal-clause process. ORS 746.230 — Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. The statute provides that an insurer or other person may not commit or perform any of a list of unfair claim settlement practices, including: misrepresenting facts or policy provisions in settling claims; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications relating to claims; failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims; refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information; failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after completed proof of loss statements have been submitted; not attempting, in good faith, to promptly and equitably settle claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; and compelling claimants to initiate litigation to recover amounts due by offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered. Farris v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 284 Or. 453 (1978), held that ORS 746.230 does not create a stand-alone private right of action. In Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or. 772 (2023), the Court of Appeals had allowed a negligence per se claim based on ORS 746.230(1) and read that Farris discussion as dictum (317 Or. App. 233 (2022)); the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed on different reasoning, disagreed with the dictum reading, and held that a plaintiff suing a first-party life insurer that failed to investigate and pay her claim had pleaded a legally cognizable common-law negligence claim for emotional distress damages. OAR 836-080-0220 through 836-080-0240 — Claim Handling Standards. The regulations establish specific standards for first-party automobile total-loss settlements: (836-080-0240(3)(a)) Computerized database source. The insurer may settle a cash claim using a computerized database that produces statistically valid and fair market values, subject to six criteria, (A) to (F): (A) values for at least 85% of makes and models for the last 15 model years; (B) values of vehicles currently available or available within the last 90 days from the date of loss; (C) for vehicles five model years old or less, values derived primarily from verifiable data or inventory from licensed dealers; (D) monitoring of the average retail price of private passenger automobiles; (E) primary consideration to the values of vehicles in the local market area; and (F) fair market values based on current data from the area surrounding the location where the insured vehicle was principally garaged. (836-080-0240(3)(b)) Actual cost of replacement. The insurer may settle on the actual cost to purchase the automobile it identifies as a replacement automobile that is at least comparable to the insured automobile. (836-080-0240(3)(c)) Alternative deviation method. If the insurer deviates from §(3)(a)–(b), documentation in the claim file must support the deviation and give particulars of the pre-loss condition; any deductions from the cost, including deduction for salvage if the salvage is retained by the claimant, must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount and must be appropriate in amount. (836-080-0240(6)) Right of Recourse — 35-day window. If the insured notifies the insurer within 35 days of the receipt of the claim draft that the insured cannot purchase an automobile for the market value determined under section (3), the insurer must reopen its claim file and either locate a comparable automobile currently available for that value, pay the difference or negotiate and effect the purchase, offer a replacement automobile, or conclude the loss settlement under the appraisal section of the policy. (836-080-0240(3)) Taxes and fees. A cash settlement includes all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of ownership of another comparable automobile. ORS 742.554 — Total-Loss Disclosures. The statute requires insurers, when settling a total-loss claim, to provide (1) any valuation or appraisal reports relied upon by the insurer, and (2) a written statement in a form prescribed by the DCBS Director containing information about total loss/valuation/insurer duties and how to contact the Division of Financial Regulation. ORS 742.558 supplies the companion dispute-resolution mechanism for total-loss vehicles. Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon, 350 Or. 336 (2011) — Systemic Underpayment Class Action. A jury found for a class of Farmers insureds on claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud, over a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced personal injury protection (PIP) payments for medical expenses. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the jury could infer classwide reliance from evidence common to the class and affirmed the judgment of about $900,000 in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Salvage Title — ORS 801.527 and ORS 819.016. ORS 801.527 defines a "totaled vehicle" as one declared a total loss by an insurer that is obligated to cover the loss (or that the insurer takes possession of or title to) and, for damage not covered by an insurer, one whose estimated cost to repair is at least 80 percent of its retail market value before the damage; ORS 819.016 specifies when a salvage title is required. ORS 819.012 governs the registered owner's duty to surrender title within 30 days of the insurer's total-loss declaration, a Class A misdemeanor offense for non-compliance; insurer-side procedures are at ORS 819.014. Oregon requires the policyholder's named appraiser under the policy's appraisal clause to hold a DMV-issued Vehicle Appraiser Certificate or another state's vehicle appraiser certificate or license (ORS 742.466). SecondAppraisal Inc does not hold an Oregon Vehicle Appraiser Certificate; the policyholder must retain a certified appraiser if invoking the appraisal clause, and our market-research and valuation analysis serves as one of the foundations of that certified appraiser's independent opinion.

The Oregon Supreme Court has not recognized a separate tort of first-party bad faith. Farris v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 284 Or. 453 (1978), held that ORS 746.230 does not create a stand-alone private right of action. In Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or. 772 (2023), the Court of Appeals had allowed a negligence per se claim based on ORS 746.230(1) and read that Farris discussion as dictum (317 Or. App. 233 (2022)); the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed on different reasoning, disagreed with the dictum reading, and held that a plaintiff suing a first-party life insurer that failed to investigate and pay her claim had pleaded a legally cognizable common-law negligence claim for emotional distress damages. Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon, 350 Or. 336 (2011), was a class action over a claims handling process that arbitrarily reduced personal-injury-protection payments for medical expenses. A jury found for the class on breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud; the Oregon Supreme Court held that the jury could infer classwide reliance from evidence common to the class and affirmed the judgment of about $900,000 in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. The Vehicle Appraiser Certificate requirement is narrowed by ORS 819.482(2)(c)'s adjuster exemption, so the leverage point is the appraisal-clause appraiser, not routine carrier-side adjusters. ORS 742.554's mandatory total-loss disclosures (valuation/appraisal reports plus DCBS-prescribed form) and the ORS 742.558 dispute-resolution mechanism together lock in the documentary record before any dispute escalates.