Oklahoma House Bill HB3780

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Insurance; rate filing requirements; independent actuary; effective date.

Summary

HB3780 amends Oklahoma’s property and casualty insurance rate-filing law to require insurers to include the opinion of an appointed independent actuary in the annual Statement of Actuarial Opinion. The bill also requires an actuarial opinion summary from the company’s appointed independent actuary for domestic insurers, and makes that summary available on request for insurers licensed in Oklahoma but domiciled elsewhere. The filing must follow NAIC Property and Casualty Annual Statement Instructions and include state-specific justification for rates set. The measure further authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to require supporting actuarial reports and workpapers. If an insurer does not provide those materials, or if the Commissioner finds them unacceptable, the Commissioner may engage a qualified actuary at the insurer’s expense to review the opinion and prepare the supporting materials. The bill defines an “independent actuary” as a qualified actuary who is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries and has no relationship or direct financial interest that would impair objectivity, while still allowing the actuary to be paid by the insurer for services rendered.

Impact

HB3780 would strengthen the documentation and review requirements for property and casualty insurance rate filings in Oklahoma by adding an independent actuarial opinion requirement and expanding the Insurance Commissioner’s authority to obtain outside actuarial review at the insurer’s expense. It amends 36 O.S. 2021, Section 1125, and would apply to insurers doing business in the state, with specific filing obligations for domestic insurers and request-based disclosure for non-domiciled insurers. The act becomes effective November 1, 2026.

Sentiment

The committee discussion and vote suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The author described it as a transparency measure intended to ensure rate increases are valid, and the House Insurance Committee advanced it by a 4-2 vote. The available record shows support for increased oversight rather than significant opposition in the discussion excerpts provided.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the added compliance burden and cost to insurers, since the bill allows the Commissioner to hire a qualified actuary at the company’s expense if supporting materials are not provided or are deemed insufficient. While the transcript excerpts do not capture detailed opposition arguments, the 4-2 committee vote indicates some members were not persuaded, likely reflecting concerns about regulatory expansion, expense, or the practical impact on rate-filing processes. The bill’s supporters framed the issue as transparency and validation of rate increases.