Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.

“An action may be brought under ORS 124.100 for financial abuse . . . [w]hen a vulnerable person requests that another person transfer to the vulnerable person any money or property that the other person holds or controls and that belongs to . . . the vulnerable person . . . and the other person, without good cause, either continues to hold the money or property or fails to take reasonable steps to make the money or property readily available.” ORS 124.110(1)(b).

This case presented a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court sought clarification of whether Plaintiffs' stated a claim under Oregon’s elder financial abuse statute. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged Defendants acted in bad faith by intentionally obstructing the insurance claims process and denying the claim or paying less than contractually obligated. Defendants argued that the elder abuse statute does not cover an insurer-insured relationship because Defendants were not given “money or property” from Plaintiffs that they later refused to return. “An action may be brought under ORS 124.100 for financial abuse . . . [w]hen a vulnerable person requests that another person transfer to the vulnerable person any money or property that the other person holds or controls and that belongs to . . . the vulnerable person . . . and the other person, without good cause, either continues to hold the money or property or fails to take reasonable steps to make the money or property readily available.” ORS 124.110(1)(b). The Court reasoned that the first element that Plaintiff must establish was the “transfer” of its property to Defendant. The Court found the “contractual right to receive insurance benefits” was a right solely belonging to Plaintiffs, and was not conveyed to Defendants and improperly kept. The Court concluded insurance benefits were outside the scope of the “money” described in ORS 124.110, and Plaintiffs did not state a cognizable claim under the elder financial abuse statute.