A Montana district court has ruled that a 2021 state law allowing insurers to consider marital status when setting rates does not violate the Montana Constitution. The decision comes after a legal challenge from a group of individuals and organizations that argued the law was discriminatory.
Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan issued the ruling in a 12-page decision. The case focused on House Bill 379, legislation passed in 2021 that overturned a 1985 “unisex” law that prohibited insurers from using marital status to determine rates.
Background of the 2021 Legislation
House Bill 379, sponsored by Rep. Sue Vinton, R-Billings, allows insurance companies to consider both sex and marital status when calculating premiums. Before the legislation was passed, the state’s earlier law required insurers to ignore marital status when setting rates.
Supporters of HB 379 argued that the change would allow insurers to incorporate more data into their pricing models. Opponents challenged the law in court, claiming it violated the equal protection clause of the Montana Constitution and also constituted prohibited “special legislation.”
Equal Protection Arguments in the Case
The plaintiffs, represented by Upper Seven Law Firm, argued that using marital status in insurance rate calculations discriminates against single individuals. They also claimed the law violated a constitutional provision that restricts legislation designed to benefit a particular group or industry.
Judge Menahan examined whether marital status falls under a protected category in the state constitution. The constitution protects several classes, including race, sex, and religious beliefs. However, the judge concluded that marital status is not included among those protected categories.
“The clause does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status,” Menahan wrote in the ruling.
Because marital status is not a protected class under Montana law, the court evaluated whether the legislation served a legitimate government interest. Montana Auditor and Commissioner of Securities and Insurance James Brown argued that the state has a legitimate interest in keeping insurance rates low.
Expert Testimony on Risk and Pricing
During the case, experts discussed how insurers assess risk when determining premiums.
Shawn Kraft, co-owner of Leavitt Great West Insurance Company, testified that married individuals are less likely to file insurance claims than single individuals. According to testimony presented in the case, 42 states and the District of Columbia offer discounts to married couples.
Actuarial expert Ryan Purdy also testified about the complexity of insurance rate calculations. He explained that married individuals tend to drive slightly more than single individuals, thereby increasing their risk exposure. However, married couples often engage in less risky driving behaviors, thereby reducing overall risk.
Judge Menahan noted that differences in premiums between married and single individuals can be explained by actuarial results.
“Simply because a statute discriminates on the basis of marital status does not mean the statute is irrational,” Menahan wrote.
Plaintiff Claims About Premium Differences
Some plaintiffs reported paying higher insurance premiums because they were single. According to the lawsuit, one individual paid 6.2 percent more in premiums because of their marital status.
However, the court determined that actuarial data can justify differences in rates between demographic groups. As a result, the ruling found the practice to be logically connected to insurance underwriting and risk assessment.
Special Legislation Claim
The plaintiffs also argued that HB 379 violated Montana’s prohibition on “special or local acts,” which prevents lawmakers from passing legislation that benefits a particular industry or group.
They claimed that the law granted insurance companies special treatment because other entities operate under different regulatory frameworks.
Judge Menahan rejected this argument. He ruled that the legislation applies equally to all insurance companies operating in the state and therefore does not represent unconstitutional special legislation.
Statements From the Insurance Commissioner
Montana Auditor and Commissioner of Securities and Insurance James Brown supported the court’s decision. His office defended the constitutionality of HB 379 during the litigation.
Brown said the previous “unisex” law prevented insurers from incorporating certain factors, including marital status, when calculating premiums. He also said his office intervened in the case to defend the legislation passed by the Montana Legislature.
The district court’s ruling allows insurers in Montana to continue considering marital status when determining insurance rates under the framework established by HB 379.
Stay informed and ahead of the curve — explore more industry insights and program opportunities at ProgramBusiness.com.