You’ve signed dozens of them without thinking twice: liability waivers absolving ski resorts and bike parks of responsibility if you get hurt. It’s just part of the ritual before you board the lift and drop into the park. Sign here, initial there, now go have fun.
But what if those waivers you’ve been signing for years mean absolutely nothing?
That’s the reality unfolding in Oregon right now, where a series of court rulings has essentially gutted the liability protection that resorts and bike parks depend on. Insurance companies are responding the only way they know how: jacking up premiums by triple digits, or simply walking away from Oregon altogether. For bike parks across the state, the question isn’t whether they’ll be affected—it’s whether they’ll survive at all.
Significant price increases at Timberline Lodge
Timberline Lodge is a ski resort located on Oregon’s Mt. Hood that also operates a bike park in the summer. On October 8, 2025, Timberline sent out a letter (also shared on its website) outlining significant price increases. Timberline’s insurance was dropping them, resulting in increased premiums with a new company.
In fact, Timberline’s original insurance company is leaving Oregon altogether. Timberline was informed of this news on June 1, 2025, and needed to find a new provider by October 1.
The intent of the letter was two-fold. First, Timberline informed the public of the price increase. They reported that finding a new insurer resulted in a 166% increase in their liability insurance premium, which has risen 586% since 2020. A new insurer also resulted in a deductible 10 times what they paid the previous year. These increases would be reflected in lift ticket pricing, including season passes, peak-time tickets, and summer tickets.
The other reason Timberline sent out this letter was to call for reform of Oregon’s liability laws. “The liability landscape is extremely out of balance, and it’s impacting not only affordability and accessibility for riders, but also the jobs and families that depend on these recreation opportunities,” John Burton, Timberline’s Director of Marketing and Public Affairs, told us. “The escalating cost of liability insurance is not simply a financial concern; it has become a business imperative for all Oregon recreation operators.”
Burton and Timberline want to see “common-sense liability legislation” passed, just like “every other western state.” While they agree that businesses and operators should be held accountable for their facilities, they maintain that individuals participating in risky activities need to be responsible for their own actions.
How did we get here?
The problems with Oregon’s liability insurance laws date back to 2006, in a case involving another Oregon ski resort: Mt. Bachelor. Unfortunately, a snowboarder was injured in a terrain park, leaving him paralyzed.
This snowboarder, James Bagley, had signed a liability waiver releasing Mt. Bachelor of any responsibility. Bagley still sued, claiming the jump he was injured on wasn’t properly built or maintained. In 2014, after Bagley’s lawyers took his case all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon ruled in Bagley’s favor.
The courts ruled in favor of Bagley based on several reasons. They said a liability waiver cannot release a business from its own negligence. They also deemed these types of liability waivers to be unreasonable, “take-it-or-leave-it” deals. A participant has no negotiating power; if you don’t sign, you won’t be allowed on the mountain. Lastly, the Oregon Supreme Court also found that these types of liability waivers could allow a business to neglect its facilities.
Mt. Bachelor isn’t the only resort that has faced similar issues. In 2022, Mt. Hood Skibowl, a small ski hill and bike park just across the highway from Timberline, closed after losing an $11.4 million case. In the Skibowl case, a mountain biker crashed into a 4×4 signpost adjacent to the trail, paralyzing him. Skibowl was ultimately found to be negligent, with any liability waivers deemed ineffective.
More recently, a lawsuit was filed against Hoodoo, a small ski hill outside of Sisters, Oregon, in September 2025. A young girl was injured in the mountain’s terrain park after colliding with another skier who was entering the park from the side. The lawsuit points out that most terrain parks are roped off, only allowing entrance from the top. For some reason, Hoodoo dropped its ropes 30 minutes before it closed, allowing skiers and boarders to enter the park from anywhere. In this case, the family is seeking $ 4.6 million.
It is cases like these, where insurance companies are having to pay out significant sums of money, that make it difficult for them to stay in Oregon. Essentially, it isn’t good for business.
Getting legal: Defining ‘negligence’
To help make sense of all this legal complexity, we reached out to Zach Mumford, an attorney in Bellingham, Washington, who also happens to be an avid mountain biker. While Mumford does practice law, it is important to note that he has no involvement whatsoever with any of the cases mentioned, nor is he involved with any insurance proceedings in Oregon.
“Oregon, like many western states, is a plaintiff-friendly state,” Mumford said. “What that means is that it’s easier for plaintiffs to recover in personal injury lawsuits — there is no cap on damages, and both the courts and juries tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs than in other states.”
He pointed out that, by and large, this is a good thing, as it offers even the “little guys” protection from large corporations. Mt. Bachelor, for example, has been owned by POWDR since 2001. However, he also mentioned that it can lead to precisely what we’re seeing now — increased insurance rates and companies leaving completely.
For Bagley Vs. Mt. Bachelor, Mumford said that the waiver was likely too aggressive. Often, these waivers release a business of any responsibility, even in the event of their own negligence. This is likely where Oregon found fault with Mt. Bachelor.
As far as what exactly “negligence” is, Mumford said that is for the jury to decide. He did provide a working definition, though, saying that negligence means falling below the standard of care that a reasonable ski area owner and operator (or any other business/facility) would use.
“[Negligence] usually comes down to a battle of the experts,” said Mumford. “Both the defense and the plaintiff will have experts to discuss why the jump was safe or why it was unsafe, respectively. A jury can then make the decision about whether or not the ski area was negligent, or whether they used due care.”
That is exactly what happened in the Skibowl case. The plaintiff’s attorneys used Nat Lopes, a professional trailbuilder, as their expert witness.
While “negligence,” especially when it comes to downhill tracks at a bike park, can be fairly relative and complicated, Mumford said the legal process is very fact-based. At the same time, while he can’t speak to the facts in the Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor case, one can assume that the facts leaned in Bagley’s direction.
Do Oregon’s ski resort issues affect mountain biking?
Well, yes, so long as the ski resort operates a bike park in the summer. We have already seen one bike park (Skibowl) close due to a liability lawsuit.
While there wasn’t a lawsuit or “incident” attached to Timberline’s insurer dropping them, we wondered how the rising costs would affect their bike park operations. Would prices go up? Could the bike park be closed altogether?
“Without a meaningful resolution to the underlying insurance challenges, I can’t responsibly forecast what the specific ramifications might be for our bike park operations in 2026 and beyond,” Burton said.
Even when winter operations are the primary driver of increased insurance costs, the financial pressures ripple through the entire business. A resort paying higher insurance premiums will pass those costs to its customers. In turn, many of those customers may opt to ski less — or not at all — impacting the resort’s profits. If the bottom line is impacted enough, the resort may need to make cutbacks, such as layoffs or reducing certain operations.
Aside from notable parks like Whistler, most bike parks aren’t very profitable for ski resorts, and often act as a way to retain employees year-round. In a recent Singletracks article, Park City Mountain Resort stated that its summertime operations don’t turn a profit at all. It isn’t too much of a stretch to extrapolate that summer operations, such as bike parks, might be the first to go in Oregon.
Mt. Bachelor declined our request for an interview. Still, they did share this statement: “While we won’t share specifics regarding insurance coverages, we can say that we have to work hard to find insurance carriers that are even willing to meet with us, and that it takes multiple insurance carriers to meet Mt. Bachelor’s needs.”
The real test comes this winter. If Oregon’s 2025/26 ski season sees skiers and riders staying home because of higher ticket prices, bike parks could be the first casualties when resorts start looking for places to cut in 2026. Without legislative reform to address the liability crisis, those waivers you’ve been signing may continue to offer zero protection — and Oregon’s bike parks may not survive the fallout.
2 Comments
2 hours ago
Sorry for the wall of text but this stuff really chaps my hide. I wish somebody else were responsible for my MTB injuries (tib/fib fracture with 3 surgeries over 6 months, 12 broken ribs in 3 incidents, broken hand, etc.
Thanks for the article though...now I'm all pissed off before the work day even starts :)
59 minutes ago