58 Trial Lawyer • Spring 2023 being incurred. The defendant appealed that portion of the fee award, and the Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that no source of law authorizes an award of attorney fees anticipated to be incurred in the future. ORS 12.080(1), the statute of limitations for contract actions, is not subject to the discovery rule. Romero v. Amburn, 323 Or App 410 (2022); Aoyagi, J. The plaintiff was represented by Benjamin Karlin. The plaintiff purchased a newly built house from the defendant in 2008. In 2017, the plaintiff discovered that construction defects had caused extensive damage to the house. The plaintiff then brought this action for breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, relying on Waxman v. Waxman & Associates, Inc., 224 Or App 499 (2008), to rule that the ORS 124.110 where there is no evidence that the defendant acted with intent to financially injure. Adelsperger v. Elkside Development, LLC, 322 Or App 809 (2022); Aoyagi, J. The plaintiff was represented by Dan G. McKinney. The plaintiffs, many of whom are aged 65 years or older, entered into membership camping contracts with a campground operator in Lakeside, Oregon, between 1999 and 2017. After the campground operator sold the campground to the defendant, Elkside Development, LLC, the defendant decided not to honor the contracts the plaintiffs had made with the prior owner. The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and elder financial abuse. The jury found for the plaintiffs on both claims. On appeal of the resulting judgment, the defendant argued the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict and sending the plaintiffs’ claims to the jury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. As to the elder abuse claim, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to offer sufficient evidence that, among other things, the defendant acted with an improper motive in deciding not to honor the membership contracts — i.e., that the defendant acted with an intent to injure the plaintiffs in no longer honoring the contracts. In contract for sale of equipment, broadly worded disclaimer of liability of the seller “in any event” clearly and unequivocally immunizes seller from tort liability. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. TNA NA Manufacturing, Inc., 323 Or App 447 (2022); Kamins, J. The plaintiffs were represented by Sara Kobak. The plaintiffs, Lloyd’s of London, the insurer for SunOpta, Inc., sued the defendants, TNA NA Manufacturing, Inc. and Food Design, Inc., alleging that equipment that SunOpta purchased six-year statute of limitations for contract claims in ORS 12.080(1) is not subject to the discovery rule. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the discovery rule does apply. The plaintiff argued that Waxman was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721 (2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that ORS 12.080(1) is not subject to the discovery rule. The court explained that a long line of case law from both appellate courts recognizes that a breach of contract action accrues upon breach. The court further reasoned that, although there is some tension between that line of case law and the Rice line of case law, the two lines of case law are not necessarily irreconcilable so as to result in an implicit overruling of Waxman. The Court of Appeals therefore adhered to its holding in Waxman. A defendant does not act with an improper motive within the meaning of Sheets Continued from p 57
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==