Oregon Ski Resorts in Crisis After Liability Bill Fails

Oregon’s outdoor recreation industry is facing a potentially catastrophic insurance crisis after key liability legislation failed in the 2025 state legislature. The bill, SB 1196, was aimed at restoring the enforceability of liability waivers—critical tools that have allowed ski resorts, rafting outfitters, and climbing gyms to operate in high-risk environments.

Following the bill’s collapse in committee, major insurers like Safehold Special Risk have begun pulling out of Oregon, leaving ski areas like Timberline Lodge and Mt. Hood Meadows scrambling to find new coverage before next winter.

“If we don’t have that [insurance], we won’t be able to operate,” said Matthew Drake, CEO of Mt. Hood Meadows, in a June interview with Ski Area Management magazine.

While lawsuits have chased high-risk recreational sports since time immemorial, Oregon’s crisis can be traced to a consequential 2014 Oregon Supreme Court ruling, Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, which found that liability waivers could be considered “unconscionable” and thus unenforceable under Oregon law. The case involved a snowboarder who was paralyzed after a crash on a terrain park jump. Though he had signed a season pass waiver, the court ruled the waiver gave the resort too much immunity and violated state law.

Since that ruling, Oregon has become a legal outlier among Western states. While most neighboring states uphold waivers for recreational activities, Oregon courts continue to treat them with more skepticism— which sounds reasonable, until you see what that does to the insurance market.

Insurance Market Fallout

In May, Safehold Special Risk—one of the largest outdoor recreation insurers in the country—announced it would no longer provide coverage in Oregon. The decision affects both Mt. Hood Meadows and Timberline Lodge and has left the state with only one known carrier willing to insure ski areas.

With the cost of skiing already astronomical as it is, the failiure of this new bill’s may prove disastrous for the industry and for accessibility.

Andrew Gast, general manager of Mt. Ashland Ski Area, testified during a legislative hearing that the risk is existential:

“Our fear is that — one, we're just going to keep paying more and more for the insurance that we already have. And two, that we get to a point where there is no insurance that we can get.”

“It is literally required in our permit with the Forest Service that we have to have insurance. So aside from not being a smart business choice, it would be illegal for us to open without insurance.”

Supporters of SB 1196 argued the bill was a measured response. It would have restored the enforceability of liability waivers specifically for “inherent risks” in activities like skiing or rafting—without shielding businesses from gross negligence or misconduct.

But critics disagree. Oregon Trial Lawyers Association opposed the bill, claiming it would strip injured parties of the right to legal redress even in serious injury cases. With the bill’s failure, Oregon remains the only Western state without enforceable liability protections for outdoor operators.

Ski area operators and industry advocates warn that the implications could extend far beyond the slopes. The insurance exodus could affect everything from youth climbing gyms to river guiding operations—and, eventually, the rural economies that depend on tourism.

Resorts are now being forced to prepare for painful contingencies. That may include cutting services, laying off staff, raising ticket prices, or shutting down certain operations altogether.

As Gast put it: “It’s not just a business issue. It’s a community issue.”

While legislators struggle to find a legal solution, Oregon’s ski industry hangs in the balance.