Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109 (2026)

Rates for automobile insurance and home insurance; requirements; determining existence of reasonable degree of competition.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956


Act 218 of 1956


500.2109 Rates for automobile insurance and home insurance; requirements; determining existence of reasonable degree of competition.

Sec. 2109.

    (1)  All rates for automobile insurance and home insurance shall be made in accordance with the following provisions:

    (a) Rates shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A rate shall not be held to be excessive unless the rate is unreasonably high for the insurance coverage provided and a reasonable degree of competition does not exist for the insurance to which the rate is applicable.

    (b) A rate shall not be held to be inadequate unless the rate is unreasonably low for the insurance coverage provided and the continued use of the rate endangers the solvency of the insurer; or unless the rate is unreasonably low for the insurance provided and the use of the rate has or will have the effect of destroying competition among insurers, creating a monopoly, or causing a kind of insurance to be unavailable to a significant number of applicants who are in good faith entitled to procure that insurance through ordinary methods.

    (c) A rate for a coverage is unfairly discriminatory in relation to another rate for the same coverage if the differential between the rates is not reasonably justified by differences in losses, expenses, or both, or by differences in the uncertainty of loss, for the individuals or risks to which the rates apply. A reasonable justification shall be supported by a reasonable classification system; by sound actuarial principles when applicable; and by actual and credible loss and expense statistics or, in the case of new coverages and classifications, by reasonably anticipated loss and expense experience. A rate is not unfairly discriminatory because it reflects differences in expenses for individuals or risks with similar anticipated losses, or because it reflects differences in losses for individuals or risks with similar expenses.

    (2) A determination concerning the existence of a reasonable degree of competition with respect to subsection (1)(a) shall take into account a reasonable spectrum of relevant economic tests, including the number of insurers actively engaged in writing the insurance in question, the present availability of such insurance compared to its availability in comparable past periods, the underwriting return of that insurance over a period of time sufficient to assure reliability in relation to the risk associated with that insurance, and the difficulty encountered by new insurers in entering the market in order to compete for the writing of that insurance.

History: Add. 1979, Act 145, Eff. Jan. 1, 1981

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Ins. Inst. v. Com'r, Fin. & Ins., 785 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ins. Inst. v. Com'r, Fin. & Ins., 785 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 5× “" MCL 500.2109(1)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. v. Off. of Fin. & Ins. Reg., 288 Mich. App. 552 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Because the justification was deficient, the insurance commissioner ordered petitioner to bring its rates in conformity with MCL 500.2109(1)(c). Lastly, the insurance commissioner held that the rates, as computed by petitioner, did not conform to the requirement that the…”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “Had they not commenced this proceeding, they would have been free to challenge the validity of the rules in contested case proceedings addressed to the question whether the filed rates meet the requirements of §§ 2109 and 2111 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.2109, 500.2111. Thus,…”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 486 Mich. 370 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 5× “” MCL 500.2109(l)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 40 A.3d 380 (Me. 2012). “175E, § 4(a) (West 2011); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 500.2109 (b), 500.”
Worldwide Underwriters, LTD v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2021). “LAWS § 500.2109(1)(a) – a statute that, plaintiffs 4 contend, was adopted in order to avoid “the insurance industry practice known as ‘redlining.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109(1)(a) — 3 cases
Ins. Inst. v. Com'r, Fin. & Ins., 785 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). “" MCL 500.2109(1)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Had they not commenced this proceeding, they would have been free to challenge the validity of the rules in contested case proceedings addressed to the question whether the filed rates meet the requirements of §§ 2109 and 2111 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.2109, 500.2111. Thus,…”
Worldwide Underwriters, LTD v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2021). “LAWS § 500.2109(1)(a) – a statute that, plaintiffs 4 contend, was adopted in order to avoid “the insurance industry practice known as ‘redlining.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109(1)(c) — 3 cases
Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. v. Off. of Fin. & Ins. Reg., 288 Mich. App. 552 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Because the justification was deficient, the insurance commissioner ordered petitioner to bring its rates in conformity with MCL 500.2109(1)(c). Lastly, the insurance commissioner held that the rates, as computed by petitioner, did not conform to the requirement that the…”
Ins. Inst. v. Com'r, Fin. & Ins., 785 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2010). “" MCL 500.2109(1)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Had they not commenced this proceeding, they would have been free to challenge the validity of the rules in contested case proceedings addressed to the question whether the filed rates meet the requirements of §§ 2109 and 2111 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.2109, 500.2111. Thus,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109(l)(a) — 2 cases
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 486 Mich. 370 (Mich. 2010). “” MCL 500.2109(l)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Had they not commenced this proceeding, they would have been free to challenge the validity of the rules in contested case proceedings addressed to the question whether the filed rates meet the requirements of §§ 2109 and 2111 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.2109, 500.2111. Thus,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109(l)(c) — 3 cases
Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. v. Off. of Fin. & Ins. Reg., 288 Mich. App. 552 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Because the justification was deficient, the insurance commissioner ordered petitioner to bring its rates in conformity with MCL 500.2109(1)(c). Lastly, the insurance commissioner held that the rates, as computed by petitioner, did not conform to the requirement that the…”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 486 Mich. 370 (Mich. 2010). “” MCL 500.2109(l)(a). The Commissioner derives her rulemaking authority from MCL 500.”
Ins. Inst. v. Comm'r of the Off. of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 761 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Had they not commenced this proceeding, they would have been free to challenge the validity of the rules in contested case proceedings addressed to the question whether the filed rates meet the requirements of §§ 2109 and 2111 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.2109, 500.2111. Thus,…”
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.