Oklahoma House Bill HB3781

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Report Pass: 3/5/26
• Engrossed: 3/30/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Report Pass: 4/23/26
• Enrolled: 5/6/26
• Passed: 5/12/26

Caption

Insurance; rate may not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory; expiration; effective date.

Summary

HB3781 revises Oklahoma’s Property and Casualty Competitive Loss Cost Rating Act, which governs how insurers set and file rates for property and casualty lines. The bill changes the standards for determining when a rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, including allowing a rate in a noncompetitive market to be found excessive based on actuarial review if it is likely to produce unreasonably high profit. It also requires the Insurance Commissioner to notify insurers of objections and give them an opportunity to respond before making a final excessive-rate determination. The bill also updates the rate-filing process. It removes some existing filing requirements, adds timelines for insurers to submit supporting information, and allows the Commissioner to require closer supervision of certain insurers, including a longer advance filing period. It authorizes insurers to request a hearing if placed under closer supervision, requires public website notice of certain rate increases for private passenger auto, homeowners multi-peril, and dwelling fire policies, and revises the procedures for disapproving rates both before and after they take effect.

Impact

HB3781 amends Sections 985, 987, and 989 of Title 36, changing Oklahoma insurance rate regulation for competitive and noncompetitive markets. It gives the Insurance Commissioner more explicit authority to review and disapprove rates, while also adding procedural protections for insurers such as notice, response opportunities, and hearings. The bill affects property and casualty insurers, policyholders, and the Insurance Department, particularly in auto, homeowners, and dwelling fire coverage where rate increases must be publicly posted.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support, passing both chambers with comfortable margins and receiving unanimous support in the Senate Business & Insurance Committee. The committee discussion suggests the measure was framed as consumer protection, with supporters emphasizing the need to protect consumers from unfair rate practices. The final House and Senate floor votes indicate broad, though not unanimous, approval.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the balance between consumer protection and insurer flexibility. Supporters argued for stronger oversight of rates and transparency for consumers, while the committee exchange indicates there were differing opinions about how far the bill should go and whether it could impose too much burden on insurers. The bill’s changes to the Commissioner’s authority, especially the ability to disapprove rates after they take effect and the expanded filing/supervision requirements, are the likely areas of disagreement.