Photo of Lou Ferreira

Lou Ferreira is a senior partner with more than 30 years of complex trial experience. His practice focuses on insurance coverage and environmental, safety & health issues.

Best Lawyers in America® has consistently recognized Lou as one of the leading attorneys in insurance law. He has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars from insurance companies for his clients. Lou is AV Peer Review Rated for Energy & Environmental, Martindale-Hubbell’s highest peer recognition for professional ability and ethical standards. He represents clients in an array of environmental contexts, including issues related to negotiation of consent decrees with governmental agencies, lawsuits between potentially liable parties to allocate the cost of environmental cleanups, suits against insurance companies to recover the costs associated with environmental liabilities, and Citizen Suits under the Clean Water Act. Lou has tried cases under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA), and Washington State’s Model Toxics Control Act.

Lou regularly advises companies on a wide range of risk management issues, including matters concerning the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, product liability, regulatory compliance, and contractual allocation of risks, as well as advising clients with regard to the procurement of a wide range of insurance products necessary to deal with their unique issues.

Lou has represented clients in OSHA and other types of regulatory enforcement actions involving workplace fatalities and other catastrophes. Lou is experienced in managing multi-agency investigations, coordinating evidence preservation, and making sure clients have the right experts involved to protect their rights and to understand the root causes of such events.

Prior to joining Stoel Rives, Lou served as law clerk to the Honorable Stephen S. Trott, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1989–1990) and as an honors intern in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental and Occupational Disease Litigation Section (1987). He also served as a Special Forces medic in the U.S. Army.

Click here for Lou Ferreira's full bio.

The Oregon Supreme Court has long held the legislature did not create a private right of action under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (ORS 746.230). Policyholders could bring a tort claim against their insurance company only if the insurer was subject to a standard of care independent of the insurance policy.[i]  But the Court’s mood changed last month in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or 772 (2023).

Moody’s facts are not complex.  Plaintiff Christine Moody’s husband, Troy, was accidentally shot and killed by a friend during a camping trip. Christine sought life insurance benefits, and the insurer denied Christine’s claim based on a policy exclusion for deaths caused by or resulting from the insured being “under the influence of any narcotic or other controlled substance.”  Troy evidently had marijuana in his system when he died.

Christine sued the insurer, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of an implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. She sought both economic damages and emotional distress damages. In her negligence claim, Christine alleged the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act provided an independent standard of care outside the terms of the insurance contract.  She asserted the insurer violated several claims handling practices, such as failing “to pay the insurance benefits without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information” and “[n]ot attempting, in good faith, to promptly and equitably settle a claim in which the insurer’s liability has become reasonably clear.”  Christine further alleged that the insurer “knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care as a corporation engaged in the business of marketing and selling insurance, should have known, that one or more of its foregoing acts or omissions would create an unreasonable risk of harm to the beneficiaries of its insured, including [Christine].” Finally, because of the insurer’s negligence, she had suffered “the noneconomic loss of increased emotional distress and anxiety caused by having fewer financial resources to navigate the loss of a bread-winning spouse.”Continue Reading The Mood Swings on Insurer Bad-Faith in Oregon: An Analysis of the Oregon Supreme Court Decision in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union