Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005 (2026)

Grounds for disapproval of policy forms

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      742.005 Grounds for disapproval of policy forms. The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall disapprove any form requiring the director’s approval:

      (1) If the director finds it does not comply with the law;

      (2) If the director finds it contains any provision, including statement of premium, or has any label, description of its contents, title, heading, backing or other indication of its provisions, which is unintelligible, uncertain, ambiguous or abstruse, or likely to mislead a person to whom the policy is offered, delivered or issued;

      (3) If, in the director’s judgment, its use would be prejudicial to the interests of the insurer’s policyholders;

      (4) If the director finds it contains provisions which are unjust, unfair or inequitable;

      (5) If the director finds sales presentation material disapproved by the director pursuant to ORS 742.009 is being used with respect to the form; or

      (6) If, with respect to any of the following forms, the director finds the benefits provided therein are not reasonable in relation to the premium charged:

      (a) Individual health insurance policy forms, including benefit certificates issued by fraternal benefit societies and individual policies issued by health care service contractors, but excluding policies referred to in ORS 743.402 as exempt from the application of ORS 743.405 to 743.498 and 743A.160;

      (b) Small employer group health benefit plan forms for small employers as that term is defined in ORS 743B.005, including small employer group policies issued by health care service contractors; or

      (c) Credit life and credit health insurance forms subject to ORS 743.371 to 743.380. [Formerly 743.009; 1991 c.182 §1; 1999 c.987 §4; 2017 c.206 §15]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2013 · leading case: North Pac. Ins. v. Hamilton, 22 P.3d 739 (Or. 2001).
North Pac. Ins. v. Hamilton, 22 P.3d 739 (Or. 2001). · cites it 2× “4 That approach is consistent with the standards set out in ORS 742.005 as grounds for disapproval by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services of insurance forms that require approval.”
Wright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 22 P.3d 744 (Or. 2001). · cites it 2× “In their second assignment, plaintiffs contended that, "[b]y failing to provide a separate insurance section for underinsurance, [State Farm] Auto issued a policy which is `unintelligible, uncertain, ambiguous or abstruse, or likely to mislead a person to whom the policy is…”
Petrusich v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 984 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Or. 2013). · cites it 2× “In the alternative, Petrusich argues the Court should apply heightened scrutiny because Unum’s structural conflict of interest 1 resulted in a breach of Unum’s fiduciary duty to Petrusich.”
Kirsch v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 278 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order in which the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (the department) concluded, after a contested case hearing, that the department properly applied ORS 742.005 1 in approving an individual health insurance…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005(2) — 1 case
North Pac. Ins. v. Hamilton, 22 P.3d 739 (Or. 2001). “4 That approach is consistent with the standards set out in ORS 742.005 as grounds for disapproval by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services of insurance forms that require approval.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005(3) — 1 case
Kirsch v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 278 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order in which the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (the department) concluded, after a contested case hearing, that the department properly applied ORS 742.005 1 in approving an individual health insurance…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005(4) — 1 case
Kirsch v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 278 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order in which the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (the department) concluded, after a contested case hearing, that the department properly applied ORS 742.005 1 in approving an individual health insurance…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005(6) — 1 case
Kirsch v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 278 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order in which the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (the department) concluded, after a contested case hearing, that the department properly applied ORS 742.005 1 in approving an individual health insurance…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 742.005(6)(a) — 1 case
Kirsch v. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 278 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order in which the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services (the department) concluded, after a contested case hearing, that the department properly applied ORS 742.005 1 in approving an individual health insurance…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.