licensed server or social host therefore does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, section 10; it does not bar a claim by a person who involuntarily consumed alcohol served by a licensed server or social host. The Oregon UTPA does not require a plaintiff to prove that all reasonable experts agree that a scientific representation is false to prove a misrepresentation under ORS 646.608(1)(e). State of Oregon ex rel. Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 335 Or App 30 (2024); Lagesen, C.J. The plaintiff was represented by Carson Whitehead. This case concerned whether the defendants’ statements in advertising their product, 5-hour ENERGY®, are misleading or confusing in violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The case was on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court. Reversing a prior decision of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court concluded the UTPA does not require a plaintiff to prove statements alleged to violate the UTPA are material to consumer purchasing decisions and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals to address issues not addressed previously. On remand, the Court of Appeals held, in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling, a remand to the trial court is required for the trial court to determine whether certain of the defendants’ representations were false by implication and to determine whether certain statements the court erroneously determined to be nonactionable puffery were false. The Court of Appeals also concluded the trial court did not apply an erroneous legal basis in assessing willfulness under ORS 646.605(10), misrepresentations under ORS 646.608(1)(e), or likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding under ORS 646.608(1)(b) in denying relief on certain of the State’s claims. Finally, the court held the UTPA does not require a plaintiff to prove all reasonable experts agree a scientific representation is false to prove a misrepresentation under ORS 646.608(1)(e). There is no “continuous relationship” exception to ORS 12.115(1)’s statute of ultimate repose. Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 334 Or App 751 (2024); Kamins, J. The plaintiff was represented by Jeff Pitzer and John Dunbar. The defendant law firm advised the plaintiffs regarding the potential tax ramifications of a proposed business transaction. Fourteen years later, the plaintiffs filed an action against the defendant, alleging, as a result of the defendant’s negligent advice, the plaintiffs incurred more than $2 million in legal fees and approximately $20 million in liability for back taxes, penalties and interest. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ negligence claim after concluding it was time-barred by ORS 12.115(1), a 10-year statute of ultimate repose governing actions for “negligent injury to person or property.” The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the time limitation in ORS 12.115(1) applies to negligent injuries to purely economic interests. The Supreme Court remanded for the Court of Appeals to address an additional assignment of error the Court of Appeals had not addressed before: whether ORS 12.115 did not bar the plaintiffs’ claim because the parties had an ongoing relationship that continued into the statute of repose period. The Court of Appeals held there is no “continuous relationship” exception to ORS 12.115(1)’s statute of repose, and the plaintiffs did not plead an independent basis for liability. Because the acts the plaintiffs complained of occurred over 10 years prior to the filing of their complaint, the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs’ negligence claim as time-barred. See Between the Sheets p. 58 57 Trial Lawyer | Winter 2025
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=