Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 70A. INSURANCE RATE REGULATION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 70A.05 (2026)

Rating Methods

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The compliance of rates with the standards of section 70A.04 shall be determined by considering the following matters:

(1) Factors in rates. Due consideration shall be given to past and prospective loss and expense experience within and outside this state, to a reasonable provision for catastrophe hazards and contingencies, to clearly discernible trends within and outside this state, to dividends or savings allowed or returned by insurers to their policyholders, members or subscribers, and to all other relevant factors, including the judgment of underwriters and raters.

(2) Classification. Risks may be classified by any reasonable method for the establishment of rates and minimum premiums. Classifications may not be based on race, color, creed or national origin. Rates thus produced may be modified for individual risks in accordance with rating plans or schedules which establish standards for measuring probable variations in hazards, expenses, or both.

(3) Profits. The rates may contain an allowance permitting a profit that is not unreasonable.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2002–2006 · leading case: Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 3× “" Minn.Stat. § 70A.05(1) (2004). This suggests that litigation costs associated with past rates can be built into future rates regardless of competition.”
Porch v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 642 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 70A.05(1) (2000); Mich. Comp.”
Minn. Stat. § 70A.05(1): 2 cases
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2006). “" Minn.Stat. § 70A.05(1) (2004). This suggests that litigation costs associated with past rates can be built into future rates regardless of competition.”
Porch v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 642 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “Minn.Stat. § 70A.05(1) (2000); Mich. Comp.”
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.