Allstate Northbrook, Esurance Marital Status as Rating Factor California Class Action

Is a married person more reliable or responsible than a single person? The complaint bring suit against Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company and Esurance Property and Casualty Company, alleging that they use marital status as an optional rating factor in calculating premiums for auto insurance. The complaint alleges that this is not legal in California because the law permitting it is in conflict with other laws.

The Allstate Class for this action is all persons who, between April 29, 2019 and the date the class is certified in this case, paid for and were issued, reissued, or renewed private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance policies were issued by Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company in California, and whose policy premiums were calculated, in whole or in part, using the “single” marital status of a “rated operator” at the time their policy was issued, reissued, or renewed.

The Esurance Class is the same except with a change in the company name to Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company.

According to the complaint, the companies treat as single, for rating purposes, “those who are single and who have never been married, those who are divorced, and those who are unregistered domestic partners[.]”

The practice of discriminating based on marital status, the complaint alleges, violates the Rosenthal Auto Insurance Nondiscrimination (RAIN) Law, part of the California Insurance Code, as well as the civil rights Unruh Act. However, a history is involved.

In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 103, which the complaint alleges “required insurers to be placed on equal footing with other businesses in California by subjecting insurers to laws that are applicable to other businesses” including civil rights laws, such as the Unruh Act.

In 1994, the Commissioner of the California Department of Insurance prohibited auto insurers from using marital status as a factor in calculating premiums. The prohibition was removed in 1996, and marital status was permitted to be used as an optional rating factor.

This permission for the optional use of marital status is still in effect, but the complaint alleges that it conflicts with the Unruh Act, which was amended 2005. Originally, marital status was not one of the protected categories for which discrimination was not permitted, but it was added with this change.

The RAIN Law was also amended in 2008, the complaint claims, that forbid insurers from using any of the characteristics listed in the Unruh Act as “constitut[ing] a condition or risk for which a higher rate, premium, or charge may be required of the insured for that insurance.”

The complaint quotes the California Senate Judiciary Committee’s Bill Analysis of the 2005 Unruh amendments as saying, “Marital status has nothing to do with the ability to be a responsible consumer.”

However, the complaint alleges that the insurers continue to use marital status as an optional factor in calculating premiums.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Insurance
Tags: Auto Insurance, Insurance, Insurance Rates, Marital Status, Rating Criteria