SAM Magazine—Salem, Ore., July 2, 2025 — Bipartisan efforts to restore the enforceability of recreational liability waivers in Oregon failed to advance before the close of the state legislative session June 29, leaving the state’s ski areas and other recreation providers facing an escalating insurance and liability crisis.
Oregon State House
House Bill 3140 and Senate Bill 1196, which both sought to address the fallout of a 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision that invalidated such waivers, were stalled in spite of robust bipartisan sponsorship.
Despite receiving hearings and support and ultimately passing through the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee, SB 1196 was not brought to a vote on the Senate floor. Previously, HB 3140 did not receive a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. According to Protect Oregon Recreation (POR), a coalition of more than 400 recreation and fitness organizations, waiver reform bills have now failed three times in the Judiciary Committee over the past decade.
In a statement, the Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association (PNSAA) said the inaction “makes it abundantly clear that Oregon’s outdoor recreation economy is not a priority for Oregon’s legislative leaders.” The association also added that “by any reasonable metric, Oregon is now the least supportive ski state in the nation.”
Safehold Special Risk, one of Oregon’s two primary ski area insurers, said in May that it will exit the state this fall, citing that more than half of its nationwide excess losses stemmed from Oregon alone. That will leave MountainGuard as the only ski area insurer remaining in Oregon.
“Never before, in the modern history of the sport, has a ski state been down to a single primary insurer. And insurance industry experts—both within and beyond the ski industry—say it’s likely only a matter of time before Oregon is down to none,” warned PNSAA.
“Insurers are not the problem,” the association added. “The lack of enforceable liability waivers is.”
POR said the legislature “failed to adopt reasonable reforms that would protect access to recreation for all Oregonians,” and that the failure “will inevitably increase the pressure and financial burden on Oregon’s recreation providers and further limit recreation opportunities in the state.”
