www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org PO Box 87 • Dexter, OR 97431 Founded in 1935, OCAA provides Insurance Claim Professionals with information, educational resources, and an arena for networking Time is running out to register! July 22 is our an- nual Golf Tournament at Stone Creek Golf Club in Oregon City. See the registration form on page 22 or access it online at our website where you can pay your golf fees with a credit card. See you on the green! Join us for our July 12 meeting, it will be the last one until September. There will not be a meeting in August. Thank you all for a great year. Message from OCAA President Trevor Arnold, McLarens — Page 14 NEWS from Around the Web Visit us online at www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org Claims Adjusters Association Oregon JULY 2016 Stone Creek Golf Club 14603 South Stoneridge Dr, Oregon City, Oregon OCAA Annual Golf Tournament Friday, July 22, 2016 Scramble with Shotgun Start @ 1:30pm SEE PAGE 22 Return of the Tort Cap! — Page 5 Case Study F.A.A. Issues Commercial Drone Rules — Page 17
Transcript
www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org PO Box 87 • Dexter, OR 97431
Founded in 1935, OCAA provides
Insurance Claim Professionals
with information, educational resources,
and an arena for networking
Time is running out to register! July 22 is our an-nual Golf Tournament at Stone Creek Golf Club in Oregon City. See the registration form on page 22 or access it online at our website where you can pay your golf fees with a credit card. See you on the green!
Join us for our July 12 meeting, it will be the last one until September. There will not be a meeting in August.
Thank you all for a great year.
Message from OCAA President Trevor Arnold, McLarens
— Page 14
NEWS from Around the Web
Visit us online at www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org
Claims
Adjusters
Association
Oregon
JULY 2016
Stone Creek Golf Club 14603 South Stoneridge Dr, Oregon City, Oregon
OCAA Annual Golf Tournament
Fr iday , Ju ly 22, 2016 Scramble
wi th Shotgun Start @ 1 :30pm
SEE PAGE 22
Return of the Tort Cap! — Page 5
Case Study
F.A.A. Issues Commercial Drone Rules
— Page 17
OCAA — July 2016 - 2 -
Time 11:30am to 1:00pm Location Old Spaghetti Factory 715 SW Bancroft St, PDX Menu Choices $15 Chicken Marsala, Spaghetti w/Mizithra Cheese, or BLT Salad Checks, cash or credit card accepted RSVP Requested www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org
This newsletter is a publication of the Oregon Casualty Adjusters Association It is produced and distributed monthly by
OCAA Vital Statistics 2015-16 PO Box 87, Dexter, OR 97431 Website: www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org Email: [email protected]
BOWLING PAST PREZ. TAMMI MCENANEY 503/736-8356 BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE POSITION OPEN CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS PAST PRES. & CHAIR SPUNKY GRAY, 800/788-3933 PAST PRES. RON GRAY EMPLOYMENT SECRETARY POSITION OPEN GOLF PAST PRES. MARK JOHNSON, 503/565-2833 PAST PRES. MIKE MEADOWS, 503/565-3755
MEMBERSHIP PAST PRES. PATTY FERGUSON, 800/242-2923 X2551 MEETING PROGRAM & SPEAKERS PRESIDENT-ELECT POSITION OPEN
NEWSLETTER, SYMPOSIUM & WEBSITE COORDINATOR BARB TYLER, ALQUEMIE PUBLISHING 541/937-2611, [email protected] PARLIMENTARIAN PAST PRES. RON GRAY, 855/426-8898 SCHOLARSHIP SECRETARY POSITION OPEN SYMPOSIUM TREVOR ARNOLD, 503/505-7534
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON PAST PRES. SPUNKY GRAY, 800/788-3933
HOLIDAY PARTY PAST PRES. ERICA MCDANIEL 503/736-7185
FAIR USE NOTICE: This publication contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. News and informational articles posted here are for
the non-profit purposes of education and news reporting. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
Membership in OCAA ~ Time to Renew Dues! We extend membership to anyone involved in the resolution of an insurance claim: Claims Adjusters, Casualty Claims Support Staff, Defense Attorneys, Private Investigators, Fire Origin & Cause Experts, Forensic Engineers and Forensic Accountants. Trade Vendors are asked to support the organization by becoming a Vendor Partner-Advertiser in lieu of membership [see below].
To apply for membership or to RENEW DUES for 2016-17, please visit our website where you’ll find the membership application in PDF and the opportunity to pay dues online with a credit card.
Renew before November 1, 2016 to save $5 on your dues!!! www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org
July Presentation About Our Topic David Kephart, PE assesses the hazards of crude shipments, the dangers, and where it’s going. And why, in a state without any oil refineries, are so many crude tankers moving through it.
About Our Presenter David Kephart PE Senior Mechanical Engineer
Dave Kephart is an experienced mechanical engineer specializing in product failure analysis with a strong practical background in heavy industrial consulting. He has extensive experi-ence in the fields of commercial metals, power production, petrochemical, pipeline, chemical, cement production, mining, marine operation, general manufactur-
ing, liquid and dry bulk terminals, industrial toner and ink production industries. Mr. Kephart has thirteen years of experience and is a licensed Professional Engineer in Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wisconsin. He has a Bachelor’s of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Oregon State University.
He has wide experience in project management and process design as well as, de-tailed design and construction in all phases of industrial systems; fluid dynamics and mechanics, environmental control, automation, process safety, and energy conver-sion (heat exchange). Dave has experience producing drawings for construction, permit reviews and installation of process and industrial systems, in addition to con-ducting the functional and hazard analysis prior to startup. Mr. Kephart has managed diverse phases of consulting work of multidisciplinary engineering teams; from con-cept evaluation through construction, commissioning, and process failure analysis. Dave is skilled in the use of the following software: Cadworx, CaesarII, Pipe-Flo, AFT Fathom, AutoCAD, Standard Microsoft Product, SAP, and Mathcad.
Presenters Wanted: We are scheduling presenters for future monthly luncheon meetings — September 2016 through July 2017. If you would like to present on a topic of interest to adjusters, please contact OCAA President Trevor Arnold.
Vendor Partner Advertising Opportunities Always Available! Ad rates are for 12 months and must be paid in full to receive benefits offered by OCAA.
Business Card = $245 Quarter page = $365 Half Page = $485 Full Page = $590
Website Sponsorship = $125 For more information contact Barb Tyler / Alquemie Publishing
541/937-2611 or [email protected] or visit www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org
Support
OCAA
~ Welcome New Vendor Partner ~
www.facebook.com/OregonClaimsAdjusters
OCAA — July 2016
Back in 1987, the Oregon legislature enacted a limit on noneconomic dam-ages of $500,000 in personal injury cases, but soon after that the Oregon Supreme Court held in two cases that those limits were unconstitutional un-
der the Oregon Constitution. In the following case, the Court revisits those prior decisions, ultimately determining they were decided wrongly. See the discussion below regarding how this applies to the $500,000 non-economic damages cap.
Claims Pointer: This case involves the Oregon tort cap for public bodies. However, the net effect is that Oregon’s $500,000 limit on noneconomic dam-ages in personal injury cases is enforceable. (Our next update on this case will address the Court’s analysis as to when this case will be enforceable.) This is a significant change that will benefit insur-ers and self-insured entities, among many others. The Horton case involved a medical malpractice claim following a botched surgery on a six-month-old boy. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the cap on damages of Oregon Tort Claims Act was constitutional, despite years of cases going the other way. The Court re-examined the Oregon Constitu-tion and its own prior decisions, ultimately deter-mining that, among other things, the right to a jury trial under Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Con-stitution is “procedural” rather than “substantive,” meaning that the legislature could define the ele-ments of a claim or the extent of damages available for a claim. In short, the Court determined the legis-lature’s limit to claims for person injury was consti-tutional under Article I, section 17.
Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168 (2016)
In this medical malpractice case, a six-month-old boy developed a cancerous mass on his liver. Two doctors from Oregon Health & Science University
(See Case Study… continued on page 7)
- 5 -
Helping You Solve The Puzzle
Ready to assist you now with: • Structural Evaluation • Origin & Cause Fire Investigation • Accident Reconstruction • Construction Defect Investigation • Vehicle Component Failure • Product Safety Analysis • Electrical Analysis and Evaluation
Return of the Tort Cap! Oregon’s Supreme Court Reverses Two Prior Decisions in New Landmark Case
Case Study
From the desk of Jeff Eberhard:
OCAA — July 2016
(“OHSU”) participated in an operation to remove the mass but inadvertently transected blood vessels going to the child’s liver, requiring a liver trans-plant, removal of his spleen, additional surgeries, and lifetime monitoring due to the risks resulting from the doctors’ acts. The child’s mother, Lori Horton (“Horton”), brought suit against the physi-cians and OHSU.
At trial, OHSU and one of the physicians, Dr. Har-rison (“Harrison”), admitted liability for the child’s injuries, and the case went to the jury to determine the amount of damages. The jury awarded eco-nomic damages of $6,071,190 and noneconomic damages of $6,000,000. OHSU and Harrison filed a motion to reduce the jury’s verdict to $3,000,000
Case Study… (Continued from page 5)
pursuant to the Oregon Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted the motion as to OHSU, ruling that because sovereign immunity applied to OHSU, the legislature could constitutionally limit the damages for which OHSU was liable. However, the trial court denied the motion as to Harrison, ruling that the Tort Claims Act limit as applied to Harrison violated the Oregon State Constitution’s remedy clause of Article I, section 10, and the jury trial clauses of Article I, section 17, and Article VII (Amended), section 3. The trial court then entered a limited judgment against Harrison for all the dam-ages the jury had awarded, and Harrison filed a di-rect appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Before discussing the specifics of the appeal, let us first provide some background. The Horton case involves an exception to the principle that states have “sovereign immunity” from being sued. In 1989, the Tort Claims Act limited government li-ability for all damages (economic and none-conomic) to $200,000 for injury claims. In response to the Court’s opinion in Clarke v. OHSU, 343 Or 581 (2007), the Oregon legislature increased the cap to $3,000,000 for claims against the state and provided for incremental increases in the cap over time. However, the more important statute was adopted in 1987, and it placed a $500,000 cap to noneconomic damages (that is, subjective, non-monetary losses such as pain, mental suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, and so on) for all claims arising out of bodily injury, death, or prop-erty damage. In a previous Oregon Supreme Court case, Greist v. Phillips, 322 Or 281 (1995), the Court held that because a plaintiff had no claim for wrongful death when the Oregon constitution was adopted in 1857, there was no corresponding con-stitutional right to a jury trial for such a claim. Ac-cording to the Court, because wrongful death ac-tions are “purely statutory,” they exist only in the form and with the limitations chosen by the legisla-ture. The statutory cap on noneconomic damages was thus constitutional as applied to wrongful death suits. However, this ruling was limited to cases in-volving claims for which there was no related com-mon law claim in 1857. In later decisions, the statu-tory cap was held unconstitutional as applied to claims that existed in 1857—one such claim being claims for bodily injury. See Lakin v. Senco Prod-ucts, 329 Or 62 (1999); Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or 83 (2001); Klutschkowski v.
(See Case Study… continued on page 9)
- 7 -
OCAA — July 2016 - 9 -
OCAA Annual Golf Tournament
Fr iday Ju ly 22,
2016 Scramble wi th Shotgun Start
@ 1 :30pm SEE PAGE 22
Stone Creek Golf Club
PeaceHealth, 354 Or 150 (2013). Following Horton, however, the cap is now enforceable in claims for personal injury. See also Rains v. Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 359 Or 610 (May 26, 2016).
Returning to the Horton case—in it, the Court re-viewed its prior holding in Lakin v. Senco Products, 329 Or 62 (1999), that the statutory cap interfered with the Oregon Constitution that provides fact is-sues must be determined by a jury. Because the right to a jury trial was absolute, limiting the jury’s ability to determine damages was necessarily unconstitu-tional.
To arrive at its holding, the Lakin Court made three conclusions: first, the right to a jury trial guaranteed by Article 1, section 17, has the same meaning today that it did in 1857 (the year Oregon’s constitution was adopted); second, in 1857, the extent of a party’s damages in an individual case was a question of fact for the jury, and legislatures could not inter-fere with the jury’s fact-finding function; and third, the legislature’s authority to limit a jury’s factual findings was no greater than a trial court’s. Although a trial court of 1857 had authority to set aside a jury’s verdict where it was contrary to the weight of the evidence, the court could do so only if it pro-vided the option of a new trial. Thus, neither a trial court nor the legislature could unilaterally limit a jury’s award of noneconomic damages in “civil cases in which the right to jury trial was customary in 1857, or in cases of like nature.”
The Horton Court addressed each of these points in turn, beginning with the last one, that the legislature had no authority to unilaterally limit a jury’s dam-ages award if the cause of action existed in 1857. According to the Horton Court, the fact a judge can-not reweigh the amount of damages in an individual case does not mean the legislature cannot enact a statute specifying as a matter of law the nature and extent of damages that are available in a class of
Case Study… (Continued from page 7)
(See Case Study… continued on page 11)
OCAA — July 2016
that they specify a limit on damages as a matter of law rather than describing that limit generally by using a phrase such as “foreseeable damages,” they do not differ in principle, as they both limit the ex-tent of damages a jury can award in a class of cases. Because the legislature was not attempting to deter-mine the amount of damages a defendant’s act caused in an individual case, the Lakin court was wrong that damages are solely an issue of fact for the jury.
Finally, the Horton court looked to the Lakin Court’s first conclusion that the right to a jury trial under Article I, section 17, of the Oregon State Constitution means the same thing today as it meant in 1857, and so only legal limitations on damages that existed in 1857 were constitutionally valid. The Court pointed out that limits on the extent of a de-fendant’s damages in 1857 are quite different than they are today. For example, in 1857, an individual owed no “general duty” to the public to avoid caus-ing harm, only particular duties. Given the right to a jury trial applied equally to plaintiffs and defen-dants, if legal limits on liability were frozen in time
We have the breadth and depth of experience to solve complex multi-disciplined technical problems.
◊ Engineering Analysis of Fires & Explosions ◊ Industry & Consumer Product Failures ◊ Electrical Failure Analysis ◊ Structural & Building Envelope ◊ Material Science ◊ Premise Liability ◊ Construction Defects ◊ Expert Testimony
503.232.5744 www.wcfore.com
Fact Finding Through Forensics
cases. A damages cap is not a legislative attempt to reweigh a jury’s factual findings; rather, it is a legal limit on damages that applies generally in a class of cases. In sum, the legislature does have the author-ity to define as a matter of law the nature and extent of damages generally available in a class of cases.
Next, the Horton Court discussed the Lakin Court’s second conclusion, that damages are solely an issue of fact for the jury. While the Horton Court agreed that the jury determines damages, it disagreed that the jury had free rein to determine damages without legal limits. In the past, courts have limited dam-ages by limiting the class of persons to whom a de-fendant owes a duty, and they have used concepts such as proximate cause to limit the extent of the damages for which a defendant can be held respon-sible. Oregon law limits a defendant’s liability to the foreseeable damages their negligence caused. Thus, legal limits on a jury’s assessment of civil damages have been and remain an accepted feature of Oregon law. While statutory damage caps differ from other legal limitations of a jury’s authority in
Case Study… (Continued from page 9)
OCAA — July 2016 - 13 -
as they existed in 1857, defendants would be able to invoke the right to a jury trial to argue against any expansion of claims or damages beyond those that existed in 1857.
Ultimately, the Horton court determined that Lakin could not be reconciled with other decisions of the Supreme Court on the same constitutional provi-sion, and Lakin was overruled. Thus, while Article I, section 17 provides a procedural right to have a jury rather than a judge decide claims and defenses customarily tried to a jury when Oregon adopted its constitution in 1857, as well as cases “of like na-ture,” it does not impose a substantive limit on the legislature’s authority to define the elements of a claim or the extent of damages available for a claim.
The Court did not, however, leave their decision at that. Rather, they noted that a tort cap may be un-enforceable if it violates some other provision of the Oregon or federal constitution. The court spe-cifically referenced the remedy clause found in Ar-ticle I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution as presenting a possible limitation on the legislature’s authority to alter or adjust a plaintiff’s right to a remedy. We will take up the Court’s discussion of Article I, section 10, in our next case update.
— View full opinion at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061992.pdf
— If you would like to be notified of new cases, please send an email to: [email protected]. This article is to inform our clients and others about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information without seeking professional counsel.
Case Study… (Cont. from page 11)
www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org If you are an employer seeking Claim Professionals and
would like to post a job opening on our website at no charge, please send an email to [email protected].
Include job description and contact info.
Employment Opportunities OCAA Website Puts You in Touch with Local Employment
Opportunities
IAAI — 2016 Training Conference
Riverhouse ~ Bend, Oregon September 12-15
Come join us for some great fire education at one of the most beautiful places around, Bend, Oregon. Add to your arsenal of arson knowledge in a comfortable learning environment at the Riverhouse Convention Center. Make sure to plan on joining us for the banquet; Wild Bills will be putting on a fun Casino Night for conference attendees and guests! Traveling solo or with a family, Bend in September is sure to please all!
For more information go to: www.oregoniaai.org
OCAA — July 2016 - 14 -
NEWS from
Around the Web
Notice of Temporary Rule Uniform Alternate Construction Standards The Building Codes Division recently adopted tem-porary rules, effective June 28-December 24, 2016.
The Building Codes Division is enacting rules to better align with attorney general legal advice re-garding residential structures in ORS 455.610. These rules require building officials to choose from "uniform alternate construction standards" when a determination is made that the fire appara-tus access, water supply, or both are inadequate.
This new car crash test may be tough to pass; Safety test suggests front passengers at risk in many current car models By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
One of the nation's most closely watched auto safety ratings could soon get even tougher.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which conducts rigorous car tests and issues ratings that automakers take seriously, is considering adding yet another front crash test. And early indications are that a lot of current car models will flunk.
The issue involves a test that has bedeviled auto-makers since it was instituted in 2012 -- what IIHS calls the "small overlap" crash. Cars are run into a barrier at 40 mph with all of the impact coming on the driver's side instead of striking it dead on.
The basic idea is that many accidents involve hit-ting a tree or a pole -- not just running straight into a wall or head on into another car. After many ini-tially fell short, automakers are getting "good" rat-ings on the test in large numbers.
But the IIHS decided to see what happened if it per-formed the same test on the front passenger's side of the car.
Out of seven SUVs with good ratings on the test, only one passed when it came to the crash on the right side -- the 2016 Hyundai Tucson. The rest were rated poor or acceptable.
OCAA — July 2016 - 15 -
IIHS says the issue is important because front pas-sengers are vulnerable in traffic accidents. It says about 1,600 right-front passengers died in 2014 front crashes alone.
"It's not surprising that automakers would focus their initial effort to improve small overlap protec-tion on the side of the vehicle that we conduct tests on," said David Zuby, IIHS' executive vice presi-dent and chief research officer.
The results didn't differ much between between cars that appeared to have the same construction on both sides when bumpers and covers were pulled off, when compared to those that didn't.
The worst-performing vehicle was the 2015 Toyota RAV4. It had 13 more inches of intrusion on the passenger's side than on the driver's side, IIHS says. Plus, a door opened -- which could lead to risk of passenger ejection.
"Some vehicle structures look the same on both sides, but they don't perform the same," says Becky Mueller, an IIHS senior research engineer.
Oregon OSHA will soon launch a new and im-proved website
The site will give visitors a more user-friendly ex-perience and is mobile friendly. The website has a new, clean design that is less text heavy to help our visitors quickly and easily find what you need.
Our website address will change from orosha.org to osha.oregon.gov, so you will need to update any links or bookmarks, as they will all change. Cur-rently many of our documents, rules, and publica-tions contain links to orosha.org locations and we are working to update those as quickly as possible, but during the transition period we have placed sev-eral redirects to get you close to the location of the outdated links.
Among the improvements are: A responsive site that can be easily viewed on
tablets and smartphones Topics and information organized to make more
sense to visitors Common tasks located in menu boxes Featured information that highlights current
news, alerts, and services (See News… continued on page 17)
OCAA — July 2016
The federal government made it much easier for companies to use drones for a variety of tasks, in-cluding aerial photography and emergency re-sponse.
The Federal Aviation Administration’s new com-mercial drone rules allow a broad range of busi-nesses to use drones under 55 pounds, but with sev-eral restrictions: The drones must be operated by a pilot who has passed a written test and is at least 16 years old. And drones can be flown only below 400 feet, during the day and at least five miles away from airports.
The new F.A.A. rules do not necessarily preclude a hodgepodge of state and local drone regulations that have popped up in recent years. The administration sent a letter to states and cities saying they recom-mend everyone follow their lead. But it is only a recommendation.
The F.A.A. stopped short of giving a green light to package delivery, a goal of Amazon and Google, which have pushed regulators to create rules that would allow them to transfer part of their ground-based delivery systems to the sky. The new guide-lines mandate that a commercial drone operator must always have the machine within line of sight — a rule that, for now, makes delivering packages unfeasible.
(See Drone Rules… continued on page 19)
Quick links and contact information at the bottom of each page
The new websites were completed for all of the De-partment of Consumer and Business Services divi-sions: Building Codes Division, Division of Finan-cial Regulation, Oregon OSHA, Workers' Compen-sation Division, and Workers' Compensation Board.
We want your feedback on the new website. Send comments to [email protected].
News… (Continued from page 15)
- 17 -
F.A.A. Issues Commercial Drone Rules By Cecilia Kang Reprinted from www.nytimes.com
OCAA — July 2016 - 19 -
Still, the action brings the drone delivery vision one step closer to reality. And experts predict that in time federal regulators will get comfortable with the notion.
“Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses,” said Michael Drobac, a lawyer at Akin Gump who represents drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google. “This will show the technology is reliable and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses — like for delivery.”
Drone makers and tech companies have been lobby-ing for the rules for five years. But the Obama ad-ministration, while trying to accommodate the po-tential economic benefits of the technology, has struggled to safely integrate the popular, remote-controlled flying vehicles into airspace.
Pilots and privacy groups that pushed hard for greater safety provisions and strong surveillance rules expressed fear that clearing the way for more of the flying machines posed new dangers and few protections from spying. The F.A.A. rules prohibit drones from flying above people and faster than 100 miles per hour.
“The F.A.A. continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States — the need for strong privacy safeguards,” said Marc Rotenberg, presi-dent of Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In February 2015, the F.A.A. created its first rules for recreational drone users, and more than 450,000 hobbyists registered last winter in the government’s user database.
Previously, companies had to apply for special per-mission from the F.A.A. to operate drones. The government has issued more than 6,000 approvals and about 7,000 companies are on a waiting list for approval. When the new rules go into effect in 60 days, companies will no longer have to gain that special exemption.
“With this new rule, we are taking a careful and de-liberate approach that balances the need to deploy
Drone Rules… (Continued from page 17)
(See Drone Rules… continued on page 21)
OCAA — July 2016
this new technology with the F.A.A.’s mission to protect public safety,” said Michael Huerta, the F.A.A. administrator. “But this is just our first step. We’re already working on additional rules that will expand the range of operations.”
The demand by companies has been broad. Real estate brokers want to use drones to take aerial es-tate photos, news organizations believe the ma-chines would be useful for news gathering, farmers want to use them to survey fields, andemergency responders believe the devices would be useful for rescue operations.
In a fact sheet released by the White House, the government cited economic estimates that commer-cial drones could generate more than $82 billion in the next decade.
Drones “represent a potentially powerful innovation that could have a positive impact on our economy,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. The new rules are “just the beginning of the proc-ess.”
Amazon has hired several lobbyists just to focus on drone rules. Its chief executive, Jeff Bezos, expects drone delivery to be available within the next few years and has begun testing its own devices.
The federal rules were also important for companies that prefer one blanket set of rules to the many state and city laws that have emerged in recent years. They have urged the F.A.A. to create commercial rules that they hope will pre-empt new bans passed or being considered in cities like Miami and states like California.
“We are extremely pleased the rule establishes a risk-based, federal approach for operating drones nationwide, and thank the F.A.A. for engaging in-dustry throughout the process,” said Kara Calvert, director of a coalition of drone manufacturers in-cluding the Chinese company DJI and GoPro.
Drone Rules… (Continued from page 19)
OCAA Membership
We extend membership to anyone involved in the resolution of an insurance claim: Claims Adjusters, Casualty Claims Support Staff, Defense Attorneys, Private Investigators, Fire Origin & Cause Experts, Forensic Engineers and Forensic Accountants. Trade Vendors are asked to support the organization by becoming a Vendor Partner-Advertiser in lieu of membership. To apply for membership or to RENEW DUES for 2016-17, please see page 23, or visit our website where you’ll find the membership application in PDF format and the opportunity to pay dues online with a credit card.
www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org
To submit an article to this publication contact Barb Tyler at [email protected] or call 541/937-2611.
- 21 -
OCAA Meeting Minutes for June 14, 2016 There were no Past Presidents or guests in attendance. Treasurer’s Report: Treasurer Judy Daufel reported a balance in the general fund of $20,555.47. $563.00 is in the Scholarship Fund.
Committee Reports: Golf is Friday, July 22 at Stone Creek.
Unfinished Business: None. New Business: Brian Beaudry, AIC Senior Claims Analyst at AIG has agreed to become the newest member of the OCAA Board.
General Discussion: None. Speaker: Attorney Susan Bristow-Ford presented on “Intellectual Property Litigation & Advertising Injury Claims.” Member Drawing: Melody Ewers won $50. Those who missed out on being present whentheir names were drawn were Dale Bowman, Nancy Greenidge and Al Eraut. Raffle Drawing: Judy Daufel won a $25 restaurant gift card but asked instead that the money be added to the Scholarship Fund.
Respectfully submitted by Judy Daufel, Secretary/Treasurer
Support
OCAA
Be a Board Member or Join a Committee!
OCAA — July 2016 - 22 -
Stone Creek Golf Club 14603 South Stoneridge Dr, Oregon City, Oregon
Foursome Names (Please list team member responsible for foursome first.)
Vendor Partner
OCAA Member
1.
2.
3.
4.
Signature of Team Captain
Business Phone Number
Email Address
$
$
Golf Fees
$
Dinner Only/No Golf
Total Amount enclosed by check or credit card
~ Golfer Registration ~
~ NOTICE ~
All fees must be submitted with this form
To avoid duplication, golfers included on this form should NOT mail in their own form!
Mail this form with a Check or email this form with a Credit Card Receipt to:
— Reservat ions L imi ted — Open to OCAA Members and OCAA Vendor Partners
$70 per OCAA Member [Includes green fees, (½) power cart, AND dinner.]
$90 per Vendor Partner/Guest [Includes green fees, (½) power cart, AND dinner.]
Dinner Only = $20 per person for Buffet Banquet
Buffet Banquet will be held directly following golf.
Golf Fees Per Person
OCAA Member $70
Vendor Partner/Guest $90
Dinner Only
$20 per person
PLEASE NOTE: Those who would like to play golf, but are not in a foursome, should
send in this reservation form and appropriate fees. The Golf Committee will include you with others who are not with a foursome.
If you would like to join us for the dinner only, please fill out this form and include it with your $20 payment.
DINNER ONLY $20 per person
1.
2.
OCAA — July 2016 - 23 -
CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF THE OREGON CLAIMS ADJUSTERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE III (Membership) The term “Claims” will include all types of Liability, Casualty, Property, Workers Compensation, Auto, Marine, Inland Marine, Subrogation and first party Medical Claims. “Adjuster” is any person, whose primary employment is the adjusting functions of investigating and evaluating coverage, liability and damages, including the negotiation and resolution of insurance claims.
Section 1. Active Member - Voting Privilege: Any person employed or retained by an insurance company or self-insured entity to engage in the active supervision or adjusting of Claims as described above upon application, acceptance and payment of dues.
Section 2. Honorary Member - Voting Privilege: Any Past President of the OCAA, not removed from office for due cause, upon retirement from the qualification of Active Member, or upon change of occupation, lifetime dues will be waived, with continuing voting privilege.
Section 3. Special Member - Non-Voting: The Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oregon and a Deputy selected by the Commissioner to represent the Commissioner in this Association. These memberships will be exempt from payment of dues.
Section 4. Associate Member - Non Voting: Any person retained or hired by an insurance company or self-insured entity who does not qualify as an Active Member may, upon application, acceptance and payment of dues, be an Associate Member. Associate Members will be limited to the following: Attorneys, Private Investigators, Fire Origin & Cause Experts, Forensic Engineers and Forensic Accountants whose work involves insurance defense work. Additionally, any person employed by an insurance company or self-insured entity engaged as active support staff in the adjusting of Claims.
Any person who has been an Active Member in good standing for at least five years and does not presently qualify as an Active Member may qualify as an Associate Member upon application, acceptance and payment of dues.
Section 5. Retired Member - Non-Voting: A person retiring while qualified as an Active Member may be considered a Retired Member. Retirement means no longer employed in the insurance industry.
Send your completed application, along with your check payable to: OCAA — PO Box 87, Dexter, OR 97431
Application is: (Check one) Renewal ______ New ______ Change ______ Referred by ______________________
Applicant is: (Check one) Active Member Associate Member —
You qualify for membership if you are an You qualify for this type of membership if you are any person employed by an insurance Active Claims Adjuster (all lines) or company or self-insured entity engaged as ACTIVE SUPPORT STAFF in the adjusting of a Claims Supervisor Insurance Claims; or if you are an Attorney, Private Investigator, Fire Origin & Cause Expert, Forensic Engineer, Forensic Accountant, whose work involves insurance defense Honorary Member — OCAA Past President Retired Retired — Any Claims Adjuster or Supervisor retiring while an Active Member
If you do not qualify for membership in the OCAA, please visit the OCAA website at www.oregoncasualtyadjusters.org, click on the Vendor Partner page then click on "Advertise with Us" for information on how to become a Vendor Partner. Name__________________________________________ Job Title_______________________________________ Company______________________________________ Property Casualty Auto Work Comp Other
Address____________________________________ City____________________ State_____ Zip________________ Work Telephone __________________x______ Email_________________________________________________
Newsletter and other OCAA communications will be sent to this email address
OCAA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FOR 2016-17 AUGUST 1, 2016 TO JULY 31, 2017
NEW MEMBERSHIP AND RENEWALS $25.00 (RENEW NOW! DUES INCREASE TO $30 ON NOV 1, 2016)
