Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson

The Supreme Court may allow reconsideration of a decision where it based its conclusion on an analysis not identified by the parties to the suit, but where that analysis produces the same result it will adhere to its opinion.

Jackson County (the County) sought review of a decision denying its common-law indemnity claim because the Court had reached its conclusion using an analysis the parties had not identified. The County argued the Court’s analysis may have been affected by three points. First, the Court did not discuss ORS 31.800(5) considering the application of ORS 31.610. The Court held that a common-law indemnity claim is inconsistent with the application of ORS 31.610, which allocates fault among tortfeasors. Second, the County argued the Court should have evaluated its claim for attorney fees separate from its claim for damages. The Court held that the claim for attorney fees is not independent where it depends on the viability of the underlying indemnity claim. Third, the County argued the decision was fundamentally unfair, to which the Court disagreed, holding the County, unlike the defendant in the case it relied on, had observed and approved a permit for the activity giving rise to the suit. Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.