MichiganInsurers cannot set unsupported rates based on willingness to pay
Michigan property and casualty insurers cannot use predicted customer loyalty to justify premium adjustments that lack support from insurance calculations and use factors unrelated to losses or expenses.
What it does
Property and casualty insurers cannot adjust premiums based on what customers will tolerate if those adjustments lack support from insurance calculations and rely on factors unrelated to losses or expenses.
Argument forCustomers who rarely shop around could avoid higher premiums based on their willingness to stay rather than their insurance risks or costs.
Argument againstInsurers could face disputes over whether a pricing factor reflects customers’ willingness to pay or actual loss risks and expenses.
More detail
Property and casualty insurers must not use the prohibited pricing practice, which the law treats as unfair or deceptive. The rule applies to Michigan property and casualty insurers when they set insurance rates. The ban covers adjustments that lack support from insurance calculations and use factors unrelated to loss risks or expenses. Covered factors include likely shopping or complaints, willingness to pay more, and sensitivity to price changes. The law took effect September 21, 2026.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 22ASSIGNED PA 0098'26 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECTLatest
- Sep 22FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE 9/21/2026 11:22 AM
- Sep 22APPROVED BY Governor Gretchen Whitmer 9/21/2026 9:40 AMBecame Law
- Sep 22PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 9/15/2026 1:34 PMTo Governor
- Sep 9ORDERED ENROLLED
- Vote recorded HOUSE AMENDMENT(S) CONCURRED IN ROLL CALL # 230 YEAS 32 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0. Result: pass.Upper
- Sep 9FULL TITLE AGREED TO
- Sep 9GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT
- Sep 9HOUSE AMENDMENT(S) CONCURRED IN ROLL CALL # 230 YEAS 32 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0
- Sep 9RULES SUSPENDED FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
- Sep 9PASSED BY HOUSE WITH AMENDMENT(S) WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
- Aug 25returned to Senate
- Vote recorded passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #349 Yeas 97 Nays 7 Excused 0 Not Voting 6. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 25inserted full title
- Aug 25passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #349 Yeas 97 Nays 7 Excused 0 Not Voting 6Passed House
- Aug 25read a third timeMinor
- Aug 25placed on immediate passage
- Aug 25placed on third reading
- Aug 25amended
- Aug 25read a second timeMinor
- Aug 25placed on second reading
- Aug 25motion to discharge committee approved
- Aug 25rule suspended
- Jul 3referred to Committee on InsuranceMinor
- Jul 3read a first timeMinor
- Jul 2received on 07/02/2026Minor
- Vote recorded PASSED ROLL CALL # 172 YEAS 34 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0. Result: pass.Upper
- Jul 2PASSED ROLL CALL # 172 YEAS 34 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0Passed Senate
- Jul 2AMENDMENT(S) DEFEATEDMinor
- Jul 1PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH SUBSTITUTE (S-1)
- Jul 1SUBSTITUTE (S-1) CONCURRED IN
- Jul 1REPORTED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE (S-1)Minor
- Jun 18REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE (S-1)Minor
- Jun 18REPORTED FAVORABLY WITH SUBSTITUTE (S-1) 6/17/2026Minor
- Jun 2REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTMinor
- Jun 2INTRODUCED BY SENATOR JEREMY MOSSIntroduced
Consumer Protection