Multnomah Co. Circuit Court Judge Sinlapasai Awards Attorney Fees in Excess of $500,000 Under ORS 742.061 in a First-Party Homeowners Insurance Dispute Over Valuation of the Cost of Necessary Repairs

In Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated August 24, 2026 (view opinion here), Judge Chanpone P. Sinlapasai issued this office an award of attorney fees in the full amount requested following resolution of first-party insurance litigation arising out of an underpaid homeowners insurance claim: $529,705.15. The amount of the award reflected application of a requested 30% lodestar enhancement to both the merits lodestar and the fees-on-fees lodestar of this office’s fee request.

This office filed the underlying action, Yatcyshyn and Chan v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Case No. 24CV34694, in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on July 19, 2024, alleging defendant Farmers’ liability for breach of contract and for negligence per se. Trial was scheduled to take place October 27, 2025. Sixty days before trial was scheduled to begin, on August 28, 2025, defendant Farmers moved for summary judgment as to both of plaintiffs’ claims. Farmers’ motion was successful as to the plaintiffs’ negligence claim, but not as to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The parties subsequently settled the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim prior to the date scheduled for trial, but left open the questions both of plaintiffs’ entitlement under ORS 742.061 to award of their attorney fees under the circumstances of the case and, if entitlement were established, of the amount of the fee award plaintiffs should receive.

Approximately ten months later, on August 14, 2026, the parties conducted an ORCP Rule 68C attorney fee trial before Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Sinlapasai. Farmers was represented at the Rule 68C proceeding by Lloyd Bernstein of Wilson Elser, and the plaintiffs were represented by Bob Bonaparte of this office. Attorney Stephen Leggatt of this office was the plaintiffs’ fact witness and Laura Salerno Owens (Markowitz Herbold) and Ralph Spooner (Spooner Staggs) appeared as plaintiffs’ attorney fee expert witnesses. Brian Talcott (Dunn Carney) appeared as Farmers’ attorney fee expert. 

Farmers vigorously disputed plaintiffs’ entitlement to award of attorney fees under ORS 742.061 (which provides that the court “shall” award attorney fees to policyholders who timely provide the insurer with proof of a loss covered under the policy where the insurer fails to settle the underlying insurance claim in full within six months after proof of loss and, after filing an action on the policy, the policyholders receive a recovery from the insurer in excess of the insurer’s tender within the first six months). 

Farmers specifically argued that, as a matter of law, an insurance company can only breach an insurance contract by either (i) improperly denying coverage, (ii) improperly refusing to indemnify a specific cost for which it had received adequate documentation, or (iii) affirmatively closing the insurance claim without first paying all indemnification required under the policy. In other words, Farmers argued that in a dispute over valuation only, in which the insurance company has not improperly denied coverage, an insurer does not breach the insurance contract while its investigation of the loss remains ongoing, no matter how long the investigation takes. The crux of Farmers’ argument was that the policyholders do not fully comply with their “proof of loss” obligation, such that the statutory six-month period provided in ORS 742.061 does not begin to run, until the insurer declares its investigation complete. On that basis, Farmers argued that entitlement to fees had not been triggered under the statute, and that this office was not entitled to receive any compensation for the work performed in the course of obtaining a recovery for the plaintiffs.

Judge Sinlapasai rejected Farmers’ entitlement argument in its entirety, finding that award of fees was mandated under ORS 742.061. 

Farmers also vigorously disputed the amount of plaintiffs’ requested fee award as excessive and unreasonable, arguing that if plaintiffs should receive any compensation at all, the fee award should not exceed $150,000. Farmers challenged the hourly rates requested for compensation of this office’s attorneys and paralegals as unreasonably high, and argued that this office’s expenditures of time were excessive, improperly duplicative, and in many instances too vague to warrant compensation. 

Judge Sinlapasai found that the plaintiffs’ requested rates were reasonable by reference to rates reported in the most recent Oregon State Bar economic survey after appropriate adjustment for inflation. Judge Sinlapasai further found that Farmers had not met its burden to establish through specific and cogent objections that this office’s expenditures of time were excessive, improperly duplicative, or too vague to permit meaningful review. Accordingly, Judge Sinlapasai declined to exclude any time expenditures from the lodestar calculation. 

Finally, Farmers argued that no enhancement of the lodestar product was warranted here, chiefly because at issue was a “mere” valuation dispute, such that the issues were not complex and the risk to plaintiffs’ counsel of not receiving compensation for their services was insignificant. 

Judge Sinlapasai again rejected Farmers’ argument in its entirety, finding that only “a few” Oregon attorneys had the “high level of skill, expertise, and training” to undertake litigation of this nature, that the result obtained was “excellent,” and that plaintiffs’ counsel accepted a significant risk in undertaking to represent the plaintiffs on a “true contingency basis.” On those grounds, Judge Sinlapasai awarded the requested 30% lodestar enhancement in connection with both merits litigation and litigation of plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees under ORS 742.061.