Case Name: Brenda HAMILTON, Appellant, v. George PAYNTER, dba Seahawk Seafood; Carvalho Fisheries, Inc.; and William Carvalho, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 204 Or. App. 119
Docket Number: 03CV0551; A125029
Parties: Brenda HAMILTON, Appellant, v. George PAYNTER, dba Seahawk Seafood; Carvalho Fisheries, Inc.; and William Carvalho, Respondents.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 204
Pages: 119–128

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted July 7,2005,
affirmed February 1,
petition for review allowed May 31,2006 (340 Or 672)
Brenda HAMILTON, Appellant, v. George PAYNTER, dba Seahawk Seafood; Carvalho Fisheries, Inc.; and William Carvalho, Respondents.
03CV0551; A125029
129 P3d 203
Manuel C. Hernandez argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the opening brief was Hernandez & Associates, LLC. On the reply brief was David M. Hernandez.
Camille Tourje argued the cause for respondent George Paynter, dba Seahawk Seafood. On the brief was Kent W. Day.
Robert A. Ford argued the cause for respondents Carvalho Fisheries, Inc., and William Carvalho. With him on the brief was Kurtz, Ford & Johnson, LLP.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Wollheim, J., concurring.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals in this personal injury case after the trial court ruled under ORCP 21 that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations in ORS 12.110(1). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the statute was tolled by a $1,000 payment made by defendant Paynter during the period of limitations, invoking the provisions of ORS 12.155. In Minisce v. Thompson, 149 Or App 746, 945 P2d 582 (1997), we held that ORS 12.155 was applicable only when an advance payment is made by a third-party insurer, relying on Duncan v. Dubin, 276 Or 631, 556 P2d 105 (1976), Ben Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co., 55 Or App 833, 640 P2d 620, aff'd, 293 Or 513, 651 P2d 138 (1982), and our review of the legislative history, as discussed in those cases. In explaining how our decision in Ben Rybke Co. led to our conclusion in Minisce, we observed,
"In affirming, we quoted extensively from Duncan and determined that the whole thrust of the legislative history recited in Duncan, as well as the court's discussion of that history was that 'the statute was designed to protect third-party payees and liability insurers, while at the same time encouraging payments in advance of the determination of the extent of ultimate liability, if any.' 55 Or App at 839 (emphasis in original). Indeed, we found Duncan and the legislative history quoted there 'demonstrate [ ] that the legislature was designed with only the insurer third-party situation in mind.' 55 Or App at 840."
Minisce, 149 Or App at 755-56.
We adhere to our reasoning in Minisce in this case.
Affirmed.