Provides that a violation of prohibitions against certain practices with respect to insurance is subject to an enforcement action under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
HB 4098 would expand Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) to cover certain violations of the Insurance Code, making specified insurance-related bad acts actionable as unlawful trade practices. The bill removes some existing insurance-related exemptions from the UTPA definition of “real estate, goods or services,” and it expressly allows a person harmed by a willful UTPA violation to seek not only monetary damages but also equitable relief, such as injunctions or other court-ordered remedies. It also adds a new procedural rule requiring the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to request action before a district attorney or the Attorney General may bring certain UTPA enforcement actions involving insurance.
The bill also revises several UTPA definitions and remedies. It broadens the list of conduct that can qualify as an unlawful practice, including by adding a new insurance-related category tied to violations of specified provisions of ORS chapter 746. It clarifies that courts may issue additional orders to restore money or property and to stop unlawful practices, and it requires notice to the Department of Consumer and Business Services when private suits are filed under the new insurance-related provision. The bill applies prospectively only to acts occurring on or after its effective date.
In practical terms, HB 4098 would increase consumer protection oversight of insurance practices by giving consumers and state enforcers a clearer path to challenge certain insurance misconduct under the UTPA. It would affect insurers, insurance producers, and other parties engaged in insurance-related conduct, while preserving some existing exceptions for attorney conduct and certain regulated insurance activities. It also touches manufactured dwelling sales by retaining and cross-referencing existing prohibitions on tying financing to the purchase of insurance products or misrepresenting loan terms.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote history appears mixed but somewhat favorable in committee and then unsuccessful on the floor. The House committee advanced the bill on a 5-4 vote with amendments, suggesting support among a narrow majority of committee members. However, a later motion to substitute a minority report failed, and the bill also failed on third reading in the House, indicating that it did not secure enough broader chamber support to pass.
The main point of contention appears to be the scope of private and public enforcement over insurance-related conduct under the UTPA. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a consumer-protection measure that closes gaps and gives harmed parties additional remedies, while opponents may have been concerned about expanding litigation exposure for insurers and related professionals, duplicating existing insurance regulation, or shifting enforcement authority. The requirement that the Department of Consumer and Business Services first request prosecutorial action before certain cases can proceed suggests an attempt to balance stronger enforcement with agency oversight.
HB 4098 would amend ORS 646.605, 646.608, 646.612, 646.636, 646.638, and 646.648 to bring specified insurance-code violations within the Unlawful Trade Practices Act framework, while also modifying remedies and enforcement procedures. It would allow equitable relief in UTPA actions, require notice to the Department of Consumer and Business Services in certain private suits, and limit prosecutorial action on the new insurance-related UTPA provision unless the department first requests it. The bill would also affect manufactured dwelling dealer practices by reinforcing prohibitions on tying financing to insurance purchases and misrepresenting loan information.
The bill appears to have had cautious support in committee but not enough support to advance on the House floor. The 5-4 committee vote with amendments suggests the measure was viewed favorably by a slim majority after some refinement, but the later floor votes show significant resistance or insufficient consensus. Overall, the sentiment was mixed: supportive of stronger consumer protections, but not broadly enough accepted to pass.
The central contention was whether insurance-related misconduct should be enforced through the UTPA, which can open the door to private lawsuits and broader remedies, or remain primarily within the existing insurance regulatory system. Supporters likely favored giving consumers and regulators stronger tools against deceptive insurance practices, while opponents may have worried about increased liability, overlapping enforcement, and litigation against insurers and insurance producers. The bill’s requirement that the Department of Consumer and Business Services request prosecutorial action before certain enforcement steps can be taken suggests concern about keeping agency oversight central to insurance-related cases.