Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 79.56 (2026)

Filing Rates And Rating Information

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

Subdivision 1.Prefiling of rates.

(a) Each insurer shall file with the commissioner a complete copy of its rates and rating plan, and all changes and amendments thereto, and such supporting data and information that the commissioner may by rule require, at least 60 days prior to its effective date. The commissioner shall advise an insurer within 30 days of the filing if its submission is not accompanied with such supporting data and information that the commissioner by rule may require. The commissioner may extend the filing review period and effective date for an additional 30 days if an insurer, after having been advised of what supporting data and information is necessary to complete its filing, does not provide such information within 15 days of having been so notified. If any rate or rating plan filing or amendment thereto is not disapproved by the commissioner within the filing review period, the insurer may implement it. For the period August 1, 1995, to December 31, 1995, the filing shall be made at least 90 days prior to the effective date and the department shall advise an insurer within 60 days of such filing if the filing is insufficient under this section.

(b) A rating plan or rates are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a), where the insurer files a certification verifying that it will use the mutually agreed-upon rating plan or rates only to write a specific employer that generates $250,000 in annual written workers' compensation premiums before the application of any large deductible rating plan. The certification must be refiled upon each renewal of the employer's policy. The $250,000 threshold includes premiums generated in any state. The designation and certification must be submitted in substantially the following form:

Name and address of insurer: .

Name and address of insured employer: .

Policy period: .

I certify that the employer named above generates $250,000 or more in annual countrywide written workers' compensation premiums, and that the calculation of this threshold is based on the rates and rating plans that have been approved by the appropriate state regulatory authority. The filing of this certification authorizes the use of this rate or rating plan only for the named employer.

Name of responsible officer: .

Title: .

Signature: .

Subd. 2.

[Repealed, 1995 c 231 art 1 s 36; art 2 s 110]

Subd. 3.Penalties.

Any insurer using a rate or a rating plan which has not been filed or certified under subdivision 1 shall be subject to a fine of up to $100 for each day the failure to file continues. The commissioner may, after a hearing on the record, find that the failure is willful. A willful failure to meet filing requirements shall be punishable by a fine of up to $500 for each day during which a willful failure continues. These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law.

Subd. 4.

[Repealed, 2009 c 178 art 1 s 69]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1993–1994 · leading case: Fuller v. Ulland, 858 F. Supp. 931 (D. Minnesota 1994).
Fuller v. Ulland, 858 F. Supp. 931 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 2× “4 and 72A.41, or as an insurance agent under Minn.”
Minnesota Ex Rel. Ulland v. Int'l Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of Am., 858 F. Supp. 937 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 2× “The Order further alleged that the Defendants failed to file rates and rating plans with the Commissioner as required by Minn.Stat. § 79.56. Pursuant to statute, the Defendants were notified of their statutory right to request a contested case hearing within thirty days.”
D.J.'s Upholstery, Inc. v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 505 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 79.56, subd. 1 (1988). In December 1989, MWCIA’s computer programming contractor made an error in implementing the D-ratio, a component of the merit rating plan.”
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.