California insurers can continue to charge single, divorced, and widowed drivers higher car insurance rates following a recent California Court of Appeal ruling that upheld a 1996 state regulation. The court affirmed that marital status can be used as a factor in determining premiums because it has a "substantial relationship to loss."
Some insurance companies, like Farmers Insurance, have historically used actuarial data suggesting that married drivers tend to file fewer and less severe claims than their unmarried counterparts. A 2025 analysis by the Consumer Federation of America indicated that GEICO charged a single driver $331.40 for six months of coverage, compared to $250.40 for a married driver with a similar profile.
The case was initiated in 2022 by Adamma Ison and other unmarried policyholders who sued the state's insurance commissioner. They alleged that single individuals were being charged approximately $56 to $100 more for insurance, arguing the regulation violated the state's civil rights act and an insurance nondiscrimination law, both of which were updated after 2004 to include marital status.
However, the insurance commissioner defended the regulation, asserting that the state's civil rights act contains a provision stating it "shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law," thus exempting the regulation. The appellate court concurred, referencing a 1988 voter-approved law that established the insurance commissioner's authority over setting insurance rates before marital status was added as a factor. The court also noted a legal provision that allows the act to defer to conflicting statutes.
Furthermore, the court cited notes from a lawmaker who amended one of the relevant laws, indicating an intent not to supersede the commissioner's authority to establish optional factors for setting insurance rates. This legislative intent was a key factor in the court's ruling.
Consumer advocates criticized the decision. William Pletcher, litigation director for Consumer Watchdog, stated, "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." He further alleged that the ruling "endorses discrimination by insurance companies against widows, divorcees, single parents and every other Californian who, for whatever personal reason or circumstance, is not married," referring to the current insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara.
Justice Alison Tucher dissented from the ruling, arguing that the law should not grant the insurance commissioner the discretion to selectively adhere to parts of civil rights law. Despite the criticism, the state insurance department issued a statement clarifying that the ruling changes nothing for Californians. A spokesperson noted, "The ruling leaves in place an optional rating factor that has existed since 1996 and left unchanged for 30 years by" previous commissioners, adding that "No one will be seeing higher or lower premiums for their automobile policies based on this ruling."