On September 21, 2026, Michigan signed into law Senate Bill 1013 (the Bill), which amends the Michigan Insurance Code by adding Section 2027a to prohibit the use of price optimization in property and casualty insurance ratemaking. The Bill took immediate effect upon signing.
As Troutman recently reported, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) issued Commissioner’s Bulletin B-0007-26 on September 2, 2026, addressed to all insurance companies and their agents and representatives, which defined price optimization as varying premiums based on factors unrelated to policyholders’ risk of loss or the company’s expense and declared that any use of price optimization in the ratemaking or pricing process is unfairly discriminatory and violates the Texas Insurance Code. The Bulletin made clear that price optimization is already prohibited under existing Texas law. Michigan’s Bill goes a step further by codifying the prohibition as a standalone statutory provision rather than relying on existing ratemaking and anti-discrimination statutes.
The Bill declares that it is “an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance for a property and casualty insurer to use price optimization in ratemaking.” Unlike the Texas bulletin, which characterized its guidance as a reminder of existing statutory requirements, Michigan’s approach enacts a standalone, express prohibition.
The Bill further defines “price optimization” as “a practice to charge based on an insured’s price tolerance that results in rate or premium adjustments that are not actuarially justified and based on factors that are unrelated to risk of loss or expense.” The definition identifies three specific categories of prohibited conduct: (1) considering the likelihood that the insured will engage in activities that result in insurance policy turnover, such as shopping with other insurers for a lower premium, canceling a policy before expiration, failing to renew, or complaining to the insurer; (2) estimating the willingness of the insured to pay a higher premium compared to other insureds; and (3) using any measure of a consumer’s or group of consumers’ price elasticity of demand.
Lastly, the Bill outlines certain actions that would constitute “activities that result in insurance policy turnover.” The Bill identifies the following activities: “shopping with other insurers for a lower premium; canceling a policy before the expiration of the policy term; failing to renew a policy at the renewal of the policy term; and complaining to the insurer or the insurer’s agent or representative.”
