Oregon House rejects bill to bring insurers under consumer‑protection law after heated debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After hours of floor debate about consumer accountability and potential market impacts, the Oregon House failed to pass House Bill 4,098 A, which would have removed a long‑standing insurance exemption from the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
House members on Feb. 18 failed to pass House Bill 4,098 A, a measure that would have allowed consumers and the attorney general to bring claims under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) against insurance companies.
Representative [Dobson] moved the committee report and urged passage, saying the bill "ends the longstanding exemption for insurance in our UTPA," closing what she described as a "critical gap in consumer rights." Proponents argued that Oregon consumers currently lack effective remedies when insurers delay or underpay claims and that bringing insurance into the UTPA would restore accountability.
Opponents warned the bill would spur litigation and raise premiums. Representative Bossard Davis said the measure "risks worsening an already fragile insurance market" for farmers and rural communities and argued that higher litigation costs would be passed to policyholders. Several members and witnesses also raised concerns about childcare providers, renters and small businesses facing higher costs if insurers faced expanded private suits.
Floor discussion focused heavily on whether the measure would authorize third‑party claims (suits by parties other than the policyholder) and whether the bill as drafted contained drafting gaps. Sponsors pointed to an amendment adopted in committee intended to exclude adjustment of third‑party claims from the bill’s coverage and said a technical fix would be made in the Senate if the House advanced the bill. Opponents and legislative counsel disputed that the committee amendment fully resolved exposure to third‑party litigation.
The House voted that the bill had not received the constitutional majority required for final passage and the clerk declared House Bill 4,098 A failed. Representative Bowman served notice of possible reconsideration. The bill’s supporters said they will pursue technical fixes; opponents said the measure should be re‑worked rather than advanced.
What’s next: The sponsor said she plans to work with the Senate judiciary chair on a technical amendment to clarify third‑party exclusions, and Representative Bowman’s notice signals a possible reconsideration on a future calendar. No final, statewide statutory change was enacted in this session for HB 4,098 A.