Court Upholds Insurer Premiums Based on Marital Status
A California Court of Appeal has upheld a decision allowing auto insurers to charge higher premiums based on marital status. Consumer groups criticize the ruling as discriminatory.
A divided California Court of Appeal has upheld Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's decision to permit auto insurance companies to charge unmarried Californians higher premiums. The consumer watchdog group Consumer Watchdog has condemned the ruling, stating it endorses discrimination by insurers based on marital status.
The court's decision allows insurance companies to continue using marital status as an optional rating factor. This practice can lead to widows, divorcees, single parents, and other unmarried drivers paying more for the same coverage. Reports have indicated that these surcharges can amount to approximately $56 to $100 more annually. Consumer Watchdog argues this violates California's civil rights laws.
Farmers Insurance intervened in the case alongside Commissioner Lara to defend the regulation. Consumer Watchdog asserts that the decision conflicts with the state's civil rights act, which prohibits discrimination based on marital status. The group has presented evidence showing significant premium differences between married and unmarried drivers with similar driving histories and profiles.
The ruling included a notable 30-page dissent from Presiding Justice Alison M. Tucher. Justice Tucher concluded that California law no longer permits insurers or the Insurance Commissioner to discriminate against drivers based on marital status. According to Tucher, amendments to the law prohibit such discrimination, rendering the regulation invalid.