Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Claims in Oregon

You drive carefully, maintain proper insurance, and follow the rules of the road. Then another driver runs a red light or rear-ends you at a stoplight---and you discover they have no insurance at all, or carry only Oregon's bare-minimum liability limits that come nowhere close to covering your injuries. This scenario plays out with alarming regularity on Oregon roads. When the at-fault driver cannot cover your losses, your own uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage becomes your most important financial safety net.

Oregon's UM/UIM Requirements Under ORS 742.502

Under ORS 742.502, every auto insurance policy issued in Oregon must include uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with limits at least equal to your liability coverage limits---unless you have specifically rejected or reduced this coverage in writing. If you carry the state minimum liability limits of $25,000/$50,000, your UM/UIM coverage must also be at least $25,000/$50,000 unless you signed a written waiver.

The distinction between UM and UIM coverage is straightforward but important:

• Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage applies when the at-fault driver has no liability insurance at all, or in hit and run situations where the at-fault driver is never identified.
• Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage applies when the at-fault driver has insurance, but their policy limits are insufficient to cover the full extent of your damages.

How UM Claims Work

When you are injured by a driver who has no insurance, you file a UM claim with your own insurance company. Your UM coverage steps into the shoes of the insurance the at-fault driver should have carried. You can recover medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other compensable losses---the same types of damages you would pursue in a claim against the other driver's insurer. The critical difference is that you are making a claim against your own insurance company, which creates a dynamic many accident victims do not anticipate. One exception is worth knowing: under ORS 31.715 a plaintiff who was driving uninsured or under the influence at the time of the crash cannot recover noneconomic damages at all, though economic damages are unaffected and the statute has its own exceptions.

How UIM Claims Work

Underinsured motorist claims are triggered when the at-fault driver's liability coverage is insufficient to compensate you fully. Here is a common example: You suffer $120,000 in damages from a car accident, but the at-fault driver only carries Oregon's minimum $25,000 per-person liability limit. After recovering the $25,000 from the other driver's insurer, you may turn to your own UIM coverage to seek the remaining $95,000, up to your UIM policy limits.

Oregon used to subtract the at-fault driver's liability limit from your UIM limit, but Senate Bill 411 (2015) removed that offset for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2016. Under ORS 742.502(2)(a) as amended, underinsurance coverage equals the damages you are legally entitled to recover, up to your UM/UIM limit. So on a $100,000 UIM policy where the at-fault driver carried $25,000, the $25,000 is not deducted from what your own coverage can pay. Separate credits still apply, and a UM/UIM claim carries its own deadline: under ORS 742.504(12)(a) no cause of action accrues unless, within two years of the accident, the claim is settled, arbitration is formally instituted, or an action is filed. Settling with the at-fault driver without your insurer's consent can also forfeit UIM coverage.

PIP as a First Line of Recovery

While your UM or UIM claim is being processed, Oregon's mandatory Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage provides immediate financial relief. PIP pays for medical expenses and a portion of lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. The minimum PIP coverage in Oregon is $15,000, though higher limits are available.

PIP benefits can be accessed right away---you do not need to wait for fault to be determined or for your UM/UIM claim to be resolved. This makes PIP an essential first line of recovery, helping you cover medical bills and replace lost income during the early stages of your case when financial pressure is often most acute.

Stacking UM/UIM Policies

Where more than one policy from the same insurer covers your loss, Oregon law favors the insured. In Batten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 368 Or 538 (2021), State Farm had issued multiple UM/UIM policies covering each of four injured people, then refused to pay more than it would have paid under the single policy with the highest limit — relying on a policy term that said exactly that. The Oregon Supreme Court held the term unenforceable.

One qualification matters, because it is where most disputes now live. The model policy in ORS 742.504(4)(b) does permit an exclusion when the insured is hurt while occupying a vehicle owned by, or furnished for the regular use of, an insured. So the clearest stacking cases are the ones where that exclusion cannot reach: a pedestrian, someone on a bicycle, or someone in a vehicle they do not own and is not furnished for their regular use.

The reasoning matters more than the result, because it is what makes the rule durable. ORS 742.504 sets out model UM/UIM terms, and a policy may not be less favorable to the insured than that model. Before 2015 the model itself contained an "other coverage" provision that authorized precisely the cap State Farm wanted. Senate Bill 411 deleted it. As the court put it, there is no longer any provision in the model policy that would produce the result State Farm was seeking — so the insurer could not write one into its own contract.

The same principle decided Erickson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 331 Or 681 (2001), where the insured recovered under two identical $100,000 Farmers UM policies.

A 2026 decision pushes the same principle further. In Rogers v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, 349 Or App 691 (2026), the insured was driving her own Mazda when an underinsured driver hit her. Her damages exceeded the Mazda policy's UIM limit, so she claimed under a separate Farmers policy covering her Lexus. Farmers pointed to a term excluding coverage while occupying "any vehicle owned by you or a family member for which insurance is not afforded under this policy." The Court of Appeals held that exclusion unenforceable: because the Mazda is "an insured vehicle" under the model policy in ORS 742.504(4)(b), the term gave less favorable coverage than the model allows.

Read Rogers carefully rather than broadly. It is a Court of Appeals decision from May 2026, it drew a dissent, and it does not mean every Oregon UIM claim reaches a second policy. What it does mean is that a denial resting on an owned-vehicle exclusion is worth challenging rather than accepting.

That "regular use" exclusion is itself now under serious pressure. In Walker / Washburn v. Progressive Universal Ins. Co., 352 Or App 287 (2026), two people were hurt by an underinsured driver while riding motorcycles and sought UIM under their auto policies. Progressive denied both under its regular-use exclusion. The Court of Appeals reversed, because Progressive's policy defined "auto" as a land motor vehicle "with at least four wheels" — narrower than the model policy, where ORS 742.504(2)(m) defines a vehicle broadly enough to include a motorcycle. A policy that gives less than the model gives is unenforceable to that extent.

The reasoning reaches well beyond motorcycles. Under Vega v. Farmers Ins. Co., 323 Or 291 (1996), whether a UIM provision is enforceable is decided by comparing the policy's coverage with the model policy's — an analysis that, as Walker / Washburn puts it, does not require consideration of the facts. It does not matter whether you would have been covered under the model policy on your particular facts. If the provision is narrower than the model in any respect, it fails. And under Erickson, a provision that fails is simply struck out; the court does not write the model language in to replace it, so whatever coverage remains in the policy is what you recover under.

Two limits, stated plainly. Batten, Rogers and Walker / Washburn all involved an insured's separate policies; none decided whether the limits for several vehicles listed on a single policy can be added together, and that turns on the policy's own language. And Walker / Washburn is an August 2026 Court of Appeals decision that may yet go to the Supreme Court — a strong argument to make, not a settled rule to rely on. And Batten is not about the at-fault driver's insurance — it says nothing about offsetting your UM/UIM recovery against a liability payment, which is a different rule governed by ORS 742.502 and the 2015 amendments. If more than one policy might cover your loss — your own, a spouse's, a parent's, or a household member's — every one of them should be collected and read before any settlement is signed. Our PIP and UM/UIM coverage guide works through the interaction in more detail.

Filing a Claim Against Your Own Insurer

One of the most challenging aspects of UM/UIM claims is that you are filing against the company you pay premiums to. While your insurer has a contractual obligation to honor your policy, they are also a business with a financial incentive to pay as little as possible. Common insurer tactics in UM/UIM claims include:

• Disputing fault --- arguing that you were partially or fully responsible for the accident to reduce the claim under Oregon's comparative negligence rule (ORS 31.600)
• Minimizing your injuries --- using independent medical examinations or records reviews to challenge the severity or causation of your injuries
• Lowball settlement offers --- presenting an early offer that does not reflect the true value of your claim, hoping financial pressure will lead you to accept
• Delaying the process --- drawing out the claim in the hope that frustration and financial need will push you to settle for less

Todd Huegli has handled UM/UIM claims throughout his career and understands how insurance companies approach these cases from the inside. Having an attorney advocate on your behalf signals to your insurer that you are serious about recovering full and fair compensation.

Arbitration vs. Litigation

Many Oregon auto policies mention arbitration for UM/UIM disputes, but under ORS 742.504(10) arbitration happens only if the insured and the insurer agree to it at the time of the dispute — an insurer cannot compel you into arbitration on a policy clause alone. Where both sides do agree, a neutral arbitrator hears the matter and renders a binding decision rather than a judge or jury. It can be faster and less formal than a courtroom trial, but it also has limitations---discovery may be more restricted, and the right to appeal is typically narrow.

Whether arbitration or litigation is more advantageous depends on the facts of your case, the amount in dispute, and the specific terms of your policy. Either way, the process demands thorough preparation. Todd Huegli has tried over 40 jury trials and brings that same level of preparation to every UM/UIM dispute, whether resolved at an arbitration table or in a courtroom.

Why Adequate UM/UIM Coverage Matters

Oregon's minimum liability limits of $25,000 per person are dangerously low in the context of modern medical costs. A single emergency room visit and surgery can exceed that amount many times over. Carrying higher UM/UIM limits is one of the most effective steps any Oregon driver can take to protect themselves and their family. The cost of increasing coverage is often modest compared to the protection it provides.

Protect Your Rights After an Accident with an Uninsured or Underinsured Driver

If you have been injured by a driver with no insurance or insufficient coverage, you have legal options. Oregon's UM/UIM laws are designed to ensure that responsible drivers are not left without recourse when the at-fault party cannot cover the damages they caused. But navigating a claim against your own insurance company requires a clear understanding of your policy, Oregon law, and the strategies insurers use to minimize payouts.

An experienced personal injury attorney can review your coverage, identify all available sources of recovery---including stacking opportunities---and pursue your claim aggressively. If you or a loved one is dealing with the aftermath of an accident involving an uninsured or underinsured driver, seeking legal guidance early gives you the best chance of recovering the compensation you deserve.