The Oregon State Senate on June 19 passed Senate Bill 174A, a measure that removes the insurance industry's exemption from Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and allows consumers to sue insurers for unfair or deceptive settlement practices.

Supporters said the change gives Oregonians a private remedy when insurers delay, lowball or improperly deny claims, especially after catastrophic loss. "When you lose your home, when you lose all of the wealth that you have worked so hard to provide for your family, and at the lowest moment ... you call the insurance company and make a claim and nobody's there," Senator Przonski said on the floor, arguing the bill will hold bad actors accountable.

The bill's sponsors framed the measure as a consumer-protection fix. They pointed to hundreds of complaints to the Department of Justice and to wildfire survivors who reported long delays and denied claims following recent fires. Senator Przonski said the bill merely extends the UTPA's remedies to insurers so consumers have the same tools against bad business conduct as they do against other firms.

Opponents — including Republican and some centrist Democrats — warned the measure would have economic side effects. "These types of provisions have been rejected in other states because they fuel unnecessary lawsuits," said Senator Reynolds, who opposed the bill and argued it would drive up malpractice and liability costs and worsen access to care. Senator Bonham and others warned SB 174A could undermine Oregon's workers' compensation framework and increase premiums for businesses and medical providers.

Debate on the floor included exchanges over scope and exemptions. Sponsors said workers' compensation would remain an exclusive remedy under ORS 656.018; they also pointed to language in the bill that they said explicitly exempts medical malpractice claims from the new private right of action. Opponents disputed the practical effect of those exemptions and said the change still risks broader litigation tied to administrative rules and settlement standards.

Senators also cited enforcement alternatives. Opponents pointed to the Division of Financial Regulation and the Department of Justice's authority and enforcement record, with supporters countering that administrative oversight has not given consumers a private remedy when they face unreasonable denials or long delays.

The Senate roll call produced a narrow majority. The measure was declared passed after the tally the clerk recorded on the floor. Several senators later filed vote explanations expressing concern about potential market impacts; other senators emphasized the bill's role in restoring fairness to claimants.

Why this matters: proponents say the bill gives individuals a private legal avenue when insurance companies act deceptively at moments of crisis; opponents say the potential litigation costs could increase premiums, reduce insurer participation in the Oregon market and reduce access to providers in rural areas.

The transcript shows extensive floor debate and multiple vote explanations; the Senate declared the bill passed in the evening session. The transcript does not record gubernatorial action or an effective date for the measure.