OTLA Trial Lawyer Winter 2021

62 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2021 the Employer Liability Act (ELA) and the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA). Later, Hogan Woods sold its only asset, the apartments, and distrib- uted the proceeds to the McNutt family. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim that the distribution of proceeds violated the Uniform Fraudu- lent Transfer Act (UFTA). The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims against Hogan Woods, mainly on grounds not discussed here, and held, in part, that the UFTA and veil-piercing theory were not ripe because they depended on the plaintiffs having a judg- ment against the defendants, which the plaintiffs did not yet possess. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, in part on grounds not dis- cussed here, reaching and rejecting arguments raised by the defendants as alternative bases for affirming the judg- ment. First, under the RLTA, the defen- dants argued the plaintiffs’ tenancy was not protected because the RLTA ex- cepted from protection, per ORS 90.110(7), employees whose right to occupancy is conditioned upon their employment arrangement. The Court of Appeals held that the exception did not apply to the plaintiffs as a matter of law because evidence es- tablished that the plaintiffs would receive an apartment rent credit and could live offsite and, if living onsite, termination of employment did not necessarily mean they had to vacate their apartment. Thus, a factfinder could reject the defendant’s view that the plaintiffs were not pro- tected under the RLTA because they were occupying the apartment as a condition of employment. Second, under the ELA, the defen- dants argued as a matter of law that working and breathing in an office is not “inherently dangerous.” The Court of Appeals rejected that argument because the claim was not based on working and breathing in an office, but rather on working in a building growing mold of which they informed the defendants, who refused to take any action. Third, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiffs’ UFTA and veil-piercing theo- ry were unripe. The Court of Appeals determined the UFTA recognizes a party’s right to seek relief when a fraudu- lent transfer is made in the midst of dispute over the right to payment. For piercing the veil, the Court of Appeals recognized a plaintiff may show a com- pany is unable to satisfy a judgment against it without first bringing a lawsuit against the company and waiting for the judgment to go unpaid. UM insurer did not lose ORS 742.061 (3) “safe harbor” protection from at- torney fees by initially failing to settle UM claim in full policy limit amount. Rice v. State FarmMutual Auto Ins Co., 307 Or App 238 (2020), Aoyagi, J. Dean Heiling represented the plaintiff. Cody Hoesly specializes in appeals, finan- cial fraud and commercial cases. He con- tributes to OTLA Guardians at the Sus- taining Member level. Hoesly is a partner with Larkins Vacura Kayser LLP, 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 700, Portland, OR 97204. He can be reached at 503-222- 4424 or choesly@lvklaw.com. Lisa T. Hunt specializes in appeals, general civil litigation, and full-scale trial and motions support for plaintiff ’s attor- neys. She can be reached at the Law Office of Lisa T. Hunt, LLC, 503-515-8501 or lthunt@lthuntlaw.com. Christine Moore specializes in appeals, aviation and general civil litigation. She contributes to OTLA Guardians at the Sustaining Member level. She is a partner with Richardson Wright LLP, 805 SW Broadway, Ste. 470, Portland, OR 97205. She can be reached at 503-546-4637 or christine@richardsonwright.com. Sheets Continued from p 61