Markets 
Californians who are divorced, widowed or single for any reason may be charged higher car insurance prices after a shocking court ruling.
A California Court of Appeal upheld a state regulation Thursday that’s been in place since 1996 that permits auto insurers to use marital status as a factor in determining premiums for its “substantial relationship to loss.”
Some insurers, such as Farmers Insurance, have relied on historical actuarial data that shows that married drivers tend to file fewer and less severe claims than unmarried ones. A 2025 analysis by the Consumer Federation of America, for instance, showed GEICO charged a single driver $331.40 for six months of coverage compared to $250.40 for a married driver with the same profile.
Adamma Ison along with other unmarried insured individuals sued the state’s insurance commissioner over that regulation in 2022. She alleged that single people were charged approximately $56 to $100 more for insurance.
The lawsuit claimed that regulation violated the state’s civil rights act, which prohibits discrimination based on marital status, and a related insurance nondiscrimination law. Lawmakers updated both laws after 2004 to include martial status.
But the insurance commissioner defended the regulation in court and noted that the state’s civil rights act said it “shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law.” That exempts the regulation, the commissioner argued.
The appellate court agreed, noting that voters passed a law much earlier in 1988 to create the elected office of insurance commissioner and vest that person authority over setting insurance rates before martial status was added in. It also noted a provision in law that said the act “defers” to conflicting statutes.
Notes by a lawmaker who amended one of the laws also show his intent wasn’t to supersede the authority of the commissioner to establish optional factors for setting insurance rates, the court ruled.
Some consumer advocates blasted the ruling.
“A widow does not become a more dangerous driver when her spouse dies. A divorced parent does not suddenly become a greater insurance risk when a marriage ends,” Consumer Watchdog litigation director William Pletcher said.
“This is Ricardo Lara endorsing discrimination by insurance companies against widows, divorcees, single parents and every other Californian who, for whatever personal reason or circumstance, is not married,” he said, referring to the current insurance commissioner.
Justice Alison Tucher on the court dissented against the ruling as well, arguing the law should not give the insurance commissioner the right to “pick and choose” what parts of civil rights law to comply with.
The state insurance department in a statement to the Post said the ruling changes nothing for Californians.
“The ruling leaves in place an optional rating factor that has existed since 1996 and left unchanged for 30 years by” past commissioners, a spokesperson said. “No one will be seeing higher or lower premiums for their automobile policies based on this ruling.”
Read the full article here
