By Bob Egelko, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/unmarried-higher-car-insurance-22348775.php
Auto insurance companies in California can continue to charge higher rates for unmarried drivers than for married motorists because evidence shows they’re more likely to get into accidents and file claims, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The rate difference has been authorized by the state’s insurance commissioner since 1996 and, according to a court filing on behalf of unmarried drivers, costs them $59 to $100 more for coverage than those who are married. A group of unmarried motorists, backed by consumer advocacy groups, filed suit in 2022, citing a state civil rights law that forbids discrimination based on marital status.
But in a 2-1 ruling (opens in new tab), the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the law that established the insurance commissioner’s office, Proposition 103, gave the commissioner broad authority to set rates as long as they complied with existing state and federal laws.
When the voters approved Prop. 103 in 1988, California law required equal treatment of customers based on their race, sex, religion or national origin, but the state did not prohibit discrimination based on marital status until 2005, Justice Victor Rodriguez noted in the majority opinion.
“Voters made the fundamental policy determination that the Commissioner must review and approve rate increases for various types of insurance before they can take effect,” as long as they have a “substantial relationship to the risk of loss,” Rodriguez said.
He said the commissioner’s office had determined, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not dispute, that “marital status has a substantial relationship to the risk of loss” because married drivers get into fewer accidents and file fewer insurance claims than unmarried drivers. And based on that finding, Rodriguez said, insurance commissioners, including current Commissioner Ricardo Lara, are entitled to authorize companies to charge higher rates to the unmarried.
Justice Carin Fujisaki joined Rodriguez’s opinion, upholding a decision in Lara’s favor by Alameda County Superior Evelio Grillo. In dissent, Presiding Justice Alison Tucher said the 2005 amendment to California’s civil rights law that banned marital discrimination was binding on all state agencies.
“The Commissioner’s extensive powers over automobile insurance rates do not include the right to pick and choose among the state’s civil rights laws,” wrote Tucher, who was appointed to the court by Gov. Jerry Brown. Fujisaki was also appointed by Brown, and Rodriguez was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Lawyers for the drivers who filed the suit could ask the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Attorney Harvey Rosenfield of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, who was also the chief author of Prop. 103, said in response to the ruling that the ballot measure was not intended to allow the insurance commissioner to authorize discrimination.
Voters who approved the 1988 initiative “were concerned about being overcharged on insurance and ending discrimination in the marketplace,” Rosenfield told the Chronicle. “I’m astonished that courts are not willing to honor what the voters directed. Only the California Supreme Court can stop it.”
