California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has proposed a rule that would stop car insurers from using a driver’s marital status to set rates. The Department of Insurance announced the proposal on September 16 and says the regulation has been submitted to the state’s Office of Administrative Law, the office that reviews proposed rules before they take effect. It is a proposal, not yet a rule, and nothing about current policies has changed. Insurers in California have been allowed to price married and unmarried drivers differently since 1996, and the announcement followed a July 16 appeals court ruling that let that practice stand under existing law.
Under Proposition 103, the state’s voter-approved law on how car insurance is priced, three factors carry the most weight: a driver’s safety record, the miles driven each year and the years of driving experience. Everything else is optional, and insurers may use an optional factor only if they show compliance with Prop. 103 and win the department’s approval. Marital status has been one of those optional factors for three decades. The proposal would take it off the list, so that a single, divorced or widowed driver and a married driver with the same record would be rated on the same terms.
For anyone who is widowed, divorced or never married, the practical question is whether a premium would change and when. Nothing changes for any current policy today, because the proposal has not been finalized. If it is adopted, insurers that use marital status would have to bring their rating plans into line with the final rule through the department’s Prop. 103 review, and any resulting change to rates would still be examined by the department before it reaches a policyholder. The department has not said how much any individual driver’s bill would move.
Rules that decide what California drivers pay for insurance are being rewritten on several fronts, and The Retirement Money Brief follows those changes in one email each weekday.
Get the free weekday brief → Free from RetireShield. Unsubscribe anytime.
What the proposed rule would change
The department’s September 16 announcement describes the proposal in one sentence: it would prohibit insurers from using marital status when developing private passenger auto insurance rates. Insurers currently using the factor would have to move their rating plans into compliance with the final regulation. The department adds that any change to an insurer’s rates or class plan would remain subject to its review, to make sure rates are justified, not excessive, not inadequate and in line with California law.
The announcement also addresses registered domestic partners, who receive married-person status under California Insurance Code section 381.5. That detail matters because the factor has never been a simple married-versus-single test written into the law. It is a rating category insurers have built into their own plans with the department’s sign-off, and the proposal would remove the category from the menu rather than set a new price for anyone.
Lara framed the change as a question of fairness. “The price of your auto insurance should be based on how you drive, not whether you’re married,” the commissioner said in the announcement. Assemblymember Lisa Calderon said there is no circumstance where it is acceptable for an unmarried driver to pay more for auto insurance, and State Senator Steve Padilla said marital status is “a data shortcut, not a direct, demonstrable fact about how someone drives.”
The appeals court ruling behind the timing
The proposal follows the First District Court of Appeal’s July 16 decision in Ison v. Lara. Adamma Ison and other plaintiffs challenged the 1996 regulation that lets private auto insurers consider marital status as a rating factor when it bears a substantial relationship to the risk of loss. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Company joined the case on the side of the commissioner, who was the defendant. The department says the ruling upheld the commissioner’s authority under Prop. 103 over optional rating factors.
The court was not unanimous. Insurance Business reported that the majority, Justices Rodriguez and Fujisaki, upheld the regulation, Regulation 2632.5(d)(9), reasoning that a civil rights law protecting marital status, the Unruh Act as amended in 2005, did not displace the older rule. Presiding Justice Alison Tucher wrote a 30-page dissent and concluded that “automobile insurers may no longer discriminate on the basis of marital status.” The decision, reported at 121 Cal.App.5th 983, leaves the 1996 rule in place until the commissioner changes it.
Consumer Watchdog, which filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs, was sharply critical when the ruling came down. Its litigation director, William Pletcher, said the case was about whether an insurance company can charge someone more because they are widowed, divorced or simply unmarried, and called the commissioner’s position in the case “shameful.” Lara’s September proposal now asks the state to end the practice that the commissioner defended in court on July 16, and the department’s announcement does not address that turn.
What unmarried drivers pay under the current rule
The department’s announcement gives no dollar figure for the gap, and the numbers in circulation come from advocates and news outlets. According to Consumer Watchdog’s analysis, unmarried California drivers pay roughly $56 to $100 more than married drivers. The group cited a Consumer Federation of America comparison in which GEICO quoted a single 50-year-old with a clean record $331.40 for six months, against $250.40 for an identical married driver, a 32 percent difference.
Fox LA, in its report on the proposal, put the gap for unmarried drivers, including single, divorced and widowed people, at up to $100 for identical coverage. Those figures describe particular quotes and an advocacy group’s estimate, not a statewide average published by the department, and the size of any change after a ban would depend on how each insurer rebuilds its rates.
Where the marital-status proposal goes next
The next steps run through the Office of Administrative Law and the department’s own rate review. The department’s announcement does not give a public comment deadline, a hearing date or an effective date, and Fox LA says only that the proposal faces California’s formal public notice and review process. Anyone who wants the regulation’s text can follow the link in the department’s list of 2026 press releases, where the September 16 announcement sits, and the department is the office to ask about the status of the rule.
For a driver, the first sign of any change would come from the insurer, not the regulator. Fox LA reports that insurers using marital status would have to submit updated class plans and rates to the department for review if the rule is adopted, so a lower or higher premium would appear only after that review is complete and an insurer’s new rates are approved. Until then, a policy renewal that still lists marital status as a rating factor reflects the rule that has been in force since 1996.
What remains open is how large the effect would be. The commissioner’s office has not published an estimate of how many insurers use the factor or how many drivers would see a different price, and the insurers that defended the 1996 rule in court have not commented in the department’s announcement. Those answers will arrive in the rate filings that follow a final rule, not in the proposal itself.
More Financial Reading
- How many CDs can you park at 1 bank? FDIC rules you must know
- Adding someone to your bank account: tax traps and smart moves
- The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by The Money Overview’s editorial team.
