Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 27-13-76 (2026)

Prohibition Against Premiums Not in Accord with Approved Rating Systems.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No insurer, or employee thereof, and no broker or agent shall knowingly charge, demand or receive a premium for any policy of insurance except in accordance with the respective rating systems on file with, and approved by, the commissioner. No insurer, or employee thereof, and no broker or agent shall pay, allow, or give, or offer to pay, allow, or give, directly or indirectly, as an inducement to insurance, or after insurance has been effected, any rebate, discount, abatement, credit, or reduction of the premium named in a policy of insurance, or any special favor or advantage in the dividends or other benefits to accrue thereon or any valuable consideration or inducement whatever not specified in the policy of insurance, except to the extent that such rebate, discount, abatement, credit, reduction, favor, advantage, or consideration may be provided for in rating systems filed by, or on behalf of, such insurer and approved by the commissioner. No insured named in a policy of insurance nor any employee of such insured shall knowingly receive or accept, directly or indirectly, any such rebate, discount, abatement, or reduction of premium, or any such special favor or advantage, or valuable consideration or inducement. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the payment of commissions or other compensation to regularly appointed and licensed agents and to brokers duly licensed by this state nor as prohibiting any participating insurer from distributing to its policyholders dividends, savings or the unused or unabsorbed portion of premiums and premium deposits.

(Acts 1945, No. 133, p. 145, §17; Acts 1971, No. 407, p. 707, §300.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2013 · leading case: Peacock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 51 So. 3d 298 (Ala. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peacock v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 51 So. 3d 298 (Ala. 2010). · cites it 2× “”); § 27-13-76 (“No insurer, or employee thereof, and no broker or agent shall knowingly charge, demand or receive a premium for any policy of insurance except in accordance with the respective rating systems on file with, and approved by, the commissioner”).”

Alabama Mut. Ins. Corp. v. City of Vernon, 178 So. 3d 350 (Ala. 2013). · cites it 2× “’); § 27-13-76 (‘No insurer, or employee thereof, and no broker or agent shall knowingly charge, demand or receive a premium for any policy of insurance except in accordance with the respective rating systems on file with, and approved by, the commissioner.”

Yarbrough v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 365 So. 2d 654 (Ala. 1978). · cites it 2× “Since § 27-13-76, Code 1975, prohibits insurers from charging a premium not in accordance with a rating system on file with, and approved by, the Insurance Commissioner, the Yarbroughs maintain State Farm’s charge of the additional premium was unlawful.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.