North Marion Sch. Dist. #15 v. Acstar Ins.
Decision Date | 05 July 2006 |
Docket Number | A122630.,000605846. |
Citation | 138 P.3d 876,206 Or. App. 593 |
Parties | NORTH MARION SCHOOL DISTRICT # 15, for the use and benefit of Gonzalo Aranda TREJO, William Alan Avery, Eugene Beebe, Cory Breno, Joe Brockamp, Ray Cannon, Ronald Cooper, Chuck Craig, Keith Dossey, Allen Filer, Robin Fisk, David Flippin, David Gast, Lucas Glenn, Darrell Gutherie, Basilio Gutierrez, David Hill, Derek Holcomb, Monte Holcomb, Jeff Jones, Darren King, Fred Knipe, Donald Kuhns, John Ledoux, James Manning, Ignacio Mejia Valencia, Jose Luis Mejia Valencia, Guy Meyers, Nathan Morris, Tod Mundell, Steven Nichol, John Partlow, Nemesio Pina-mondragon, Jason Portlock, Basilio Rudometkin, Clayton Sabine, Kirt Siegwald, Alan Sims, Daniel Stephens, Jerry Tallmon, Dennis Tidwell, Robert Tuttle, Martin Vandervies, Micah Walter, Warren Wegleitner, Richard Witbeck and Charles Wolcott, Appellants, v. ACSTAR INSURANCE CO.; American Home Assurance Company, a foreign corporation; OC America Construction, Inc., a foreign corporation; and Christopher J. Vanderkley, an individual, dba Vander Kley & Co., Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jacqueline L. Koch, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the joint briefs were Bailey, Pinney & Associates, J. Dana Pinney, and Koch & Deering.
Darien S. Loiselle, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Acstar Insurance Co., American Home Assurance Company, and OC America Construction, Inc. With him on the joint brief were Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Stoel Rives, and Kenneth P. Childs.
Loren S. Scott argued the cause for respondent Christopher Vander Kley, dba Vander Kley & Co. With him on the brief were Rohn M. Roberts, Eugene, and Arnold, Gallagher, Saydack, Percell, Roberts & Potter, P.C.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and LINDER and WOLLHEIM, Judges.
Plaintiffs, employees on a public improvement project, appeal supplemental judgments awarding attorney fees to defendants, the general contractor, subcontractor, and their respective sureties on the public improvement project. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to defendants, in failing to require defendants to segregate work performed on fee-generating claims and non-fee-generating claims, in awarding an enhanced prevailing party fee to the subcontractor, and in making the award of attorney fees and the enhanced prevailing party fee to the subcontractor joint and several. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for reconsideration with respect to the award of an enhanced prevailing party fee and otherwise affirm.
The judgment resolving the claims underlying the trial court's attorney fee award was appealed separately. North Marion Sch. Dist. # 15 v. Acstar Ins. Co., 205 Or.App. 484, 136 P.3d 42 (2006). In that case, we rejected plaintiffs' appeal and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of their claims. We borrow from that opinion in order to provide background for defendants' attorney fee claims in this case:
205 Or.App. at 487-489, 136 P.3d 42 (s omitted). Following the entry of judgment in favor of defendants, the trial court awarded attorney fees to defendants under ORS 742.061(1).
On appeal, plaintiffs make five assignments of error: (1) that the attorney fee award was improper because the trial court erred in finding for defendants on the underlying claims in the litigation; (2) that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to the contractor and the sureties under ORS 742.061(1) because defendants did not make a "tender" within the meaning of the statute; (3) that the trial court erred by not requiring defendants to segregate their fee-generating claims from non-fee-generating claims; (4) that the trial court erred in awarding an enhanced prevailing party fee to Vander Kley as a result of Vander Kley's assertion of bankruptcy as an affirmative defense; and (5) that the trial court erred in making the supplemental judgments to Vander Kley joint and several rather than apportioning them among plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' first assignment of error fails in light of our decision in the appeal concerning the underlying claims. 205 Or.App. 484, 136 P.3d 42. We consider the remaining issues in turn.
In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs argue that the trial court incorrectly awarded attorney fees to defendants under ORS 742.061, the statute governing the award of attorney fees in an action on an insurance policy or contractor's bond. ORS 742.061(1) provides:
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court concluded that defendants, who had paid $86,134.92 to plaintiffs for wages after plaintiffs made a claim on the bond, made a tender within the meaning of ORS 742.061(1). Alternatively, the trial court held that, in any event, plaintiffs had recovered nothing on the claim against the bond and, therefore, even if defendants had tendered nothing, plaintiffs' recovery did not "exceed the amount of any tender made by the defendant in such action" under the plain language of ORS 742.061(1).
According to plaintiffs, the trial court mischaracterized defendants' payment of $86,134.92 to plaintiffs as a "tender" within the meaning of ORS 742.061. Plaintiffs argue that the payment was "not a tender, but payment of past due wages on defendants' own terms." One issue raised by plaintiffs' argument is whether a tender by a surety under the statute must be made after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp..
...159 (Colo.2001); accord, e.g., Colo. Common Cause v. Meyer, 758 P.2d 153, 161 (Colo.1988); cf. North Marion School Dist. No. 15 v. Acstar Ins. Co., 206 Or.App. 593, 138 P.3d 876, 880 (2006) (phrase used twice in fee-shifting statute would be given the same meaning in each instance). 5. Sect......
-
Lenn v. Bottem, 120509806.
...party's position is not "`entirely devoid of legal or factual support at the time it was made.'" North Marion Sch. Dist. # 15 v. Acstar Ins. Co., 206 Or.App. 593, 607, 138 P.3d 876 (2006), aff'd, 343 Or. 305, 169 P.3d 1224 (2007) (quoting Mattiza, 311 Or. at 8, 803 P.2d We review the trial ......
-
Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...District #15 v. Acstar Insurance, the defendants were entitled to statutory attorney fees under the same statute at issue in this case. 138 P.3d 876, 879 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). Because the issues in the case were identical for all plaintiffs, the attorney fee award was allocated jointly and s......
-
Perry v. Hernandez
...of the additional claim or claims. Bennett, 164 Or.App. at 248, 990 P.2d 917; see also North Marion Sch. Dist. # 15 v. Acstar Ins. Co., 206 Or.App. 593, 605, 138 P.3d 876 (2006), rev. den.,344 Or. 670, 197 P.3d 1103 (2008) (when claims present common issues, plaintiff is not required to seg......