Friday, July 17, 2026
Page 1
Higher Insurance Rates for Single Drivers Not Unruh Act Violation, Appeals Court Declares
Opinion Upholding Insurance Commissioner’s Regulation Permitting Disparate Premiums-Cost Based on Marital Status Draws Dissent
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A regulation permitting insurance companies to charged higher rates to drivers who are single does not run afoul of the Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination by businesses based on marital status, Div. Three of the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday, in a 2-1 decision.
Key to the result was that in 1988, when voters enacted Proposition 103—providing that insurance companies must comply with “the laws of California applicable to any other business, including, but not limited to, civil rights laws,” the Unruh Act did not yet bar discrimination against unmarried persons. and still hadn’t in 1996, when the insurance commissioner promulgated the rule in issue, §2632.5(d)(9) of Title 10 of the Code of Regulations.
A statute enacted in 2005, “amending the Unruh Civil Rights Act to identify marital status as a protected characteristic—does not change this outcome,” Justice Victor A. Rodriguez, writing the majority opinion declared, with Justice Carin T. Fujisaki in agreement.
Justice Alison M. Tucher dissented, saying:
“Because insurers must comply with future amendments to the Unruh Act and the Act was amended to list marital status as a protected class in 2005, automobile insurers may no longer discriminate on the basis of marital status. And for the same reason, the Commissioner may no longer approve rates that allow such discrimination.”
Mandate Petition Denied
The majority’s decision affirms a judgment by Alameda Superior Court j Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo denying a petition for a writ of mandate sought by Adamma Ison and other unmarried drivers. They complain that in light of the regulation, they are forced to pay between $56 to $100 more for insurance policies than motorists who have a spouse.
Rodriguez wrote:
“Critically, when voters passed Proposition 103…the Unruh Civil Rights Act did not list marital status as a protected characteristic….Instead, it ensured full and equal accommodations no matter a person’s ‘sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability.’…Consistent with the Act, the Commissioner promulgated regulations in 1996 that prohibited insurers from adopting ‘any rating factor based in whole or in part upon the race, language, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, political affiliation, or sexual orientation of any person.’…But the Commissioner also authorized insurers to use the marital status of the rated driver as an optional rating factor after determining that it bore a substantial relationship to the risk of loss….As the parties agree, the regulation was then valid.”
Civil Code §51(c)
In explaining why the 2005 legislation did not render it invalid, Rodriguez pointed to Civil Code §51(c), a portion of the Unruh Act, which says:
“This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.”
Sec. 51 (c) “was unaffected by the 2005 amendment,” the justice wrote, saying that a regulation is a “law” and it “conditioned or limited” a right.
He wrote:
“Regulation 2632.5(d)(9) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act can be… reconciled….[S]ection 51(c) means the Act defers to the marital status regulation.”
Ison argued that the regulation is invalidated in light of a 2008 amendment to Insurance Code §11628 which says, which italics added by Rodriguez, that “any characteristic listed or defined” in the Unruh Civil Rights Act shall not “of itself constitute a condition or risk for which a higher rate, premium, or charge may be required of the insured for that insurance.”
The justice said:
“To the extent this provision may be read to categorically prohibit automobile insurers from using marital status as a basis for charging higher insurance rates, section 11628’s legislative history expressly disavows any intent to alter the Commissioner’s optional rating factor regulations.”
Tucher said in her dissent:
“On its face, the regulation appellants challenge allows insurers to charge unmarried drivers more than married drivers….For that reason, it cannot stand: It purports to authorize insurers to adopt rates that discriminate on a basis that the Unruh Act now prohibits. The marital status regulation is thus no longer consistent with its own authorizing legislation, which compels insurers to comply with the Act and future amendments to the Act.”
She also asserted that the regulation violates the 2008 legislation, reasoning that law “forbids insurers to charge higher automobile insurance rates based on ‘any characteristic listed’ in the Unruh Act,” and saying:
“My colleagues appear to recognize that the plain language of this provision prohibits automobile insurers from charging unmarried drivers more for automobile insurance than married drivers….Unlike my colleagues, I do not read legislative history to negate the ordinary meaning of this statutory language.”
The case is Ison v. Lara, 2026 S.O.S. 2086.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company