[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6339736,"mediaKeyId","2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002","parentId",2260822,"title","Oregon bill would require insurers to explain premium increases to policyholders","audioSeconds",2150,"startMs",13000,"endMs",2163000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002&start=13&end=2163","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002/thumbnail_13000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6339736/Oregon/Oregon-bill-would-require-insurers-to-explain-premium-increases-to-policyholders","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339736-712f9ae07db55d6d86e050b308b40df5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770963899&Signature=RlAeJ4drooxVKufQ71AJvbBdhEMSm0WJ0hNVDMzOy3n4cFQbLuDbZ555Vu4gKsiE-B-9pTVsMLPK3LNHUTJkUdrF7BTZiXXX1he83vu7LsAWidIqHSfg50sXE6XwMisS61D5ykDyZmEf1NOaCVm-q7HGbXnNKd6uRzGyf2JRTVJ1kx0hb~ZcX1a5vUfBXeMvMdLFwebQUjULMC8s3SC4t2ETNEjs5PZo56rp0HxIivhbRLfl9bC6jAjISpFamg3KqUT4GFz-w0US4qKonatWF4KUZFa73L7SeGDx0H4lBZe9qKVkcm1Phv4p~js-LZ~-xnGlmVjBkJ7ez4mmPB-VGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","House members held a public hearing on House Bill 2563 on Feb. 11 that would require property and casualty insurers to provide clear, reasonable explanations to policyholders when a renewal premium increases.

The bill, sponsored for the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation (DFR), would require insurers to supply explanations on request for renewals effective Jan. 1, 2026, and to provide automatic notices for renewal increases of 10% or more beginning in 2027. The rules would apply to personal auto and homeowners policies and include a 20-day response deadline for insurers responding to written requests.

DFR Deputy Administrator Alex Chang told the committee the agency sees the measure as a consumer-protection response to frequent complaints. \"We are here today to urge your support for House Bill 25 63, which is aimed at addressing one of the more common set of complaints we get at the division. Namely, my homeowners or auto insurance rates are going up. I can't get a straight answer as to why and what can I do about it?\" Chang said. He said consumers often receive renewal notices that either omit reasons for a rate increase or list vague factors such as \"driving record\" or \"claims history\" without specifying what event triggered the change.

Jesse O'Brien, policy manager at DFR, described the bill's two-phase approach. Phase 1 (renewals on or after Jan. 1, 2026) would require insurers to provide an explanation on written request and to disclose to policyholders, prominently on renewal notices or billing statements, that the explanation may be requested. Insurers would have 20 days to respond after receiving a written request. Phase 2 (beginning in 2027) would require insurers to proactively send an explanation when a renewal premium increases by 10% or more; the bill also specifies the content of explanations and lists possible criteria that may justify a rate increase, such as vehicle specifics, where a vehicle is stored, claims history, credit score and homeownership status. O'Brien said the bill exempts disclosure of trade secrets, proprietary modeling data and usage-based telematics components, and it would not apply to policyholder-initiated changes in coverage.

Industry witnesses said they share the goal of informing consumers but warned of compliance costs and operational burdens. Denny Ritter of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association said APICA represents about 65% of property and casualty insurers nationwide and urged that disclosures be \"useful\" and not unduly costly. Isis Thornton Saunders of Professional Insurance Agents of Oregon said individualized explanations could impose significant administrative burdens on smaller insurers and agents, potentially raising costs for policyholders. The Northwest Insurance Council—speaking from Washington—said the Washington rule that inspired the Oregon draft produced relatively few consumer requests in phase 1 and that insurers have taken on additional costs to respond to those requests.

Consumer advocates urged stronger, proactive requirements. Michael DeLong of the Consumer Federation of America and Michelle Drews of the Oregon Consumer League supported the bill, with DeLong urging policymakers not to water down the measure and Drews recounting a personal experience of a greater-than-30% renewal increase where the insurer cited only \"inflation\" after a long hold time. DeLong cited an April–November 2024 consumer price index snapshot for auto insurance that showed sharp year-over-year increases and said consumers need clearer explanations to shop or correct inaccurate information.

Committee members probed implementation details, including whether the requirement could prompt insurers to drop marginal customers rather than comply and whether the state or industry can estimate the cost of compliance. DFR said it is working with industry to reach consensus language and may propose a -1 amendment to limit scope (the original draft would also have applied to commercial auto). DFR staff also pointed to Washington state's phased regulation and the NAIC model being used as references.

The hearing produced no vote; committee members closed the public hearing on HB 2563 and moved to other bills on the agenda.

Ending: Lawmakers, regulators and industry representatives said they expect continued negotiations on amendment language ahead of any committee decision. DFR said it will continue stakeholder talks to refine the bill and to balance consumer utility against insurer compliance costs.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Commerce and Consumer Protection 02/11/2025 (PM)","oneSentenceSummary","House members held a public hearing on House Bill 2563 on Feb. 11 that would require property and casualty insurers to provide clear, reasonable explanations to policyholders when a renewal premium increases.","taxTitle","Consumer Protection, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",78404,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339726,"Bill would raise payout cap for Oregon Insurance Guarantee Association to $600,000",761,2485000,3246000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002&start=2485&end=3246","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002/thumbnail_2485000.jpg","/articles/6339726/Oregon/Bill-would-raise-payout-cap-for-Oregon-Insurance-Guarantee-Association-to-600000","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339726-61c5ff1184ab5a783afc5b2e3a08ea08/orig.mp4?Expires=1770963899&Signature=jZT9L8knyd9i2CLWgAqp9763rgMD4jyQjOoggYlrgGeoQiTg7iYBiv7plhDMW30v695uIOcGot81hXVxSUDzNYAGyF4ZPK-bgwHK2SeR03LkenpqzMxWGSE6Up91SrvR9SGTLmAAOGXv7fcT7PVNpqpt6AvDVJUYy4IxWhrTxe0zEm30KxCK6UVxi24~-5FRPGJzbl9IYBTJKX5uzva22KIF4gPForuyP64S4aOhLSm5-eiPrywOZ0rl6rwofdxv1FCEYFI-kEB1-5h7MJ7KFqWme-cbu0fhHFj9Cr6760tvMOIfKQVEgAawMGJPumONQhFee1hsCR3JjdbcXwWvAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection heard testimony on House Bill 2130 on Feb. 11, a measure to update the Oregon Insurance Guarantee Act, increase the statutory payout cap for covered property-and-casualty claims and add clarifying language for modern lines such as cybersecurity.

Representatives of the Oregon Insurance Guarantee Association (OIGA) said the association was created by statute in 1971 to pay covered claims when an insurer becomes insolvent and that the statute has had minor changes since. Kathy Broughton Bezant, OIGA administrator, said the current cap on non‑workers'‑comp property and casualty claims is $300,000 and that the association proposes raising the cap to $600,000: \"The cap, the maximum we would pay on a covered claim currently is $300,000 … We have put into House Bill 21 30 raising that statutory cap to $600,000.\" Broughton Bezant said the cap dates back more than 40 years and the increase is intended to better protect consumers while balancing practical limits on OIGA's resources.

Sean Miller, testifying for OIGA, described the association's funding sources: assessments against member insurers licensed in Oregon, reimbursement from liquidated assets of insolvent insurers and special deposits filed for workers' compensation lines. OIGA said it has not needed to issue an assessment since 2002 and that insolvencies occur irregularly; workers' compensation claims are not subject to the $300,000 cap. When asked about why the association chose $600,000 rather than a full inflation adjustment, Broughton Bezant said the board selected $600,000 in part to align with Oregon Fair Plan policy limits and to balance consumer protection with the operational and assessment capacity of OIGA and the industry.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions about funding, the frequency of insolvencies and the association's recent activity; OIGA staff said insolvencies vary by region and event type (for example, hurricane‑driven insolvencies in the Southeast) and that wildfire remains a principal regional risk for Oregon insurers.

Ending: Testifiers asked the committee to support the modernization package. No votes were taken; the public hearing was closed and the committee adjourned its Feb. 11 session.","House Bill 2130 would modernize the Oregon Insurance Guarantee Act, raise the statutory cap on covered property and casualty claims from $300,000 to $600,000 and clarify coverage for lines such as cybersecurity; the association said changes reflect inflation and market shifts since 1971.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":46,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339731,"Committee hears bill to adopt NAIC travel insurance model for Oregon",338,2501000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002&start=2163&end=2501","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260822-261498374d33b23297fd5317b1a9b002/thumbnail_2163000.jpg","/articles/6339731/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-to-adopt-NAIC-travel-insurance-model-for-Oregon","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339731-0e690c49d6484b66792bf8eaa417e5c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770963899&Signature=fxZgXoQz6oFiMIfWpZdwYvn4x1FoOiOx6zGk6xIT22TlBpW8ualIDLXglwhGbzR7w79bQWKgnNLj18Q7pbYVDlfe9REpHsuWIxXdwAbED1MwDlzTWIU3eGLFpyD-raDWfK53y2BoM2Oy0KTG-17If3Swr9bGNAUEDmUvFg7Pzi3NFvaPV1ONIXCv~EwXFEcTYGQYLcxl7ybtF6zEN7xQF72bBkmvYoi0wTHIAOHJUBWOxuDKsKY2xygkxDxvZDzpCUua4Yle6XHRunswbin~mZzB5lmAoRA8s9V5EinsLZTk8oJBTjZ1pjNWaje1iSrmhlwnm3c9NnsY5UyEMreuJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection heard testimony on House Bill 2128 on Feb. 11, a bill to update and standardize travel insurance laws in Oregon by aligning state law with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model act.

John Powell of the U.S. Travel Insurance Association told the committee the bill will codify consumer disclosures, create uniform definitions for travel insurance terms, and clarify permissible sales practices. \"The aim of the bill in front of you is to deal specifically with travel insurance and to join the 37 other states up to this point that have adopted the NAIC ... travel insurance model act,\" Powell said. He noted travel insurance often accompanies cross‑border transactions and assistance services such as 24/7 helplines, making consistent standards desirable.

Denny Ritter of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association expressed support for HB 2128 as a way to bring Oregon into alignment with most other states and to distinguish insurance from non‑insurance travel assistance components. APCIA and other trade groups said they have been working with staff and expect a forthcoming amendment that will align the draft more closely with the NAIC model.

Committee staff said an amendment to the bill is expected after the 20th of the month to reflect further alignment with the model act. There were no votes taken; the committee closed the public hearing and moved to the next item.

Ending: Supporters said the measure is largely procedural and intended to provide consistent consumer protections and regulatory clarity; stakeholders signaled willingness to continue drafting amendments with staff.","House Bill 2128 would standardize travel insurance rules in Oregon by adopting language aligned with the NAIC model act; proponents say the change improves consumer disclosures and creates uniform rules across states.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Oregon bill would require insurers to explain premium increases to policyholders

Bill would raise payout cap for Oregon Insurance Guarantee Association to $600,000

Committee hears bill to adopt NAIC travel insurance model for Oregon