Oregon’s Ski Industry Faces a Slippery Slope: Insurer Exit Sparks Debate Over Liability Laws
The Oregon ski industry is in a precarious position. Safehold Special Risk, a major insurer for ski resorts, has pulled out of the state, citing high legal risks from negligence lawsuits. This decision has left only one insurer willing to cover ski resorts in Oregon, and the ripple effects are being felt across the outdoor recreation industry.
Why Did Safehold Leave?
Safehold’s exit is tied to a 2014 Oregon Supreme Court ruling that weakened the enforceability of liability waivers. These waivers, commonly signed by participants in high-risk activities like skiing, are meant to protect businesses from lawsuits over inherent risks. But in Oregon, the court’s decision made it easier for individuals to sue for negligence, even in cases where risks were clearly outlined.
Safehold, which operates in multiple states, called Oregon an “extreme outlier” in how it handles negligence claims. The state accounted for half of the company’s payouts in the $1 million to $10 million range. For Safehold, the financial risk was simply too high.
The Impact on Ski Resorts
The departure of Safehold has left ski resorts scrambling. Insurance costs, which have already risen by 129% over the past 12 years, are expected to climb another 30% this year. Andrew Gast, general manager of Mt. Ashland Ski Area, expressed concern about the future.
“Our fear is that—one, we’re just going to keep paying more and more for the insurance that we already have,” Gast said. “And two, that we get to a point where there is no insurance that we can get.”
Without insurance, ski resorts can’t operate legally. Permits issued by the Forest Service require insurance coverage, making it a non-negotiable expense.
What’s Senate Bill 1196?
It’s a proposed law to tackle the problem. The bill strengthens liability waivers. It makes them more enforceable and lowers legal risks for recreation operators. The bill has garnered support from industry advocates who argue it’s a necessary step to keep outdoor recreation businesses afloat.
Marcus Hinz, Executive Director of the Oregon Coast Visitors Association, testified in favor of the bill. “Our guides on the Oregon Coast are responsible. They do their best to make sure their customers have the safest experience possible. But no matter how diligent the guide is, there are inherent risks,” he said. “SB 1196 provides a reasonable solution to an ongoing issue in Oregon.”
However, not everyone is on board. Opponents argue that the bill would make it too difficult for individuals to sue for legitimate negligence, potentially leaving victims without recourse.
What’s at Stake?
The stakes are high. If the last remaining insurer decides to leave Oregon, ski resorts and other outdoor recreation businesses could be forced to shut down. This would not only impact the state’s economy but also limit access to outdoor activities that many Oregonians cherish.
The current legislative session ends on June 29, leaving lawmakers with little time to act. Will they pass SB 1196 and provide relief to the industry? Or will Oregon’s ski resorts face an uncertain future?
A Balancing Act
The debate over SB 1196 highlights a broader issue: how to balance the need for legal protections with the realities of running a business in a high-risk industry. Should businesses be shielded from lawsuits over inherent risks? Or should individuals retain the right to hold operators accountable for negligence? It’s a tough question, and one that Oregon lawmakers must answer soon.
The Road Ahead
For now, the Oregon ski industry is holding its breath. The outcome of SB 1196 could determine whether ski resorts can continue to operate—or whether they’ll be left out in the cold.