Okla. Stat. » Title 36 — INSURANCE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 902 (2026)

Excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory rates

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The Insurance Commissioner shall not approve rates for insurance which are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. 1. An excessive rate is one which: a. is unreasonably high for the insurance provided, or b. is unreasonable because (1) a reasonable degree of competition does not exist in the area with respect to the classification to which such rate is applicable and (2) the rate is unreasonably high for the insurance provided. 2. An inadequate rate is one which: a. is (1) unreasonably low for the insurance provided and (2) the continued use of such rate endangers, or if continued would endanger, the solvency of the insurer, or b. is (1) unreasonably low for the insurance provided and (2) the continued use of such rate by the insurer has, or if continued would have, the effect of destroying competition or creating a monopoly, or c. is insufficient to cover projected losses, expenses and a reasonable margin for profit for the line of insurance coverage to be offered in this state by the filer. 3. A rate shall not be unfairly discriminatory. a. A rate is not unfairly discriminatory because it is based in part upon the establishment or modification of classifications of risks based upon: (1) the size of the risk, (2) the expense or difficulty in management of the risk, (3) the individual experience of the risk, (4) the location or dispersion of the risk, or (5) any other reasonable consideration attributable to the risk. b. A rate is not unfairly discriminatory in relation to another in the same class of business if it reflects equitably the differences in expected losses and expenses. Rates are not unfairly discriminatory because different premiums result for policyholders with like loss exposures but different expense factors, or with like expense factors but different

loss exposures, if the rates reflect the differences with reasonable accuracy. c. A rate shall be deemed unfairly discriminatory as to a risk or group of risks if the application of premium discounts, credits, or surcharges among such risks does not bear a reasonable relationship to the expected loss and expense experience among the various risks. d. A rate shall never be based upon race, color, creed or national origin. B. The systems of expense provisions included in the rates for use by any insurer or group of insurers may differ from those of other insurers or groups of insurers to reflect the requirements of the operating methods of any such insurer or group with respect to any kind of insurance or subdivision or combination thereof for which subdivision or combination separate expense provisions are applicable. C. Nothing in this act shall be construed to require uniformity in insurance rates, classifications, rating plans, or practices. D. Nothing in this act shall abridge or restrict the freedom of contract of insurers, agents, brokers or employees with reference to the commissions, compensation, or salaries to be paid to such agents, brokers, or employees by insurers. Added by Laws 1957, p. 243, § 902, operative July 1, 1957. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 322, § 33, eff. Jan. 1, 1981; Laws 1986, c. 251, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 1987, c. 210, § 17, eff. July 1, 1987; Laws 1988, c. 291, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 2006, c. 264, § 14, eff. July 1, 2006; Laws 2024, c. 195, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1965–2018 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Turpen v. Oklahoma State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 731 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Turpen v. Oklahoma State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 731 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1986). · cites it 13× “" [19] The relevant portions of the Board's conclusions are: "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW That the rate filing on workers compensation rates made by the NCCI is adequate for full and complete deliberation by the State Board in determining the reasonableness of the proposed rate increase…”
Compsource Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 435 P.3d 90 (Okla. 2018). “2011 § 900.1 -905, 907 -908, 932 (as amended), 1204 (as amended), 3610, and 3611; 36 O.”
Fortelney v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (W.D. Okla. 2011). · cites it 3× “93A § 2 — All plaintiffs and all subclasses Count VIII — Violation of 36 O.S. § 902 — Excessive Premiums — Fortelney, Stoup, Carter, Liberty/SS subclass, Liber- ty/SS payee subclass and Liberty/WC subclass Count IX — Unjust Enrichment — All plaintiffs and all subclasses Count X…”
Compsource Mut. Insur. Co. v. State Ex Rel. Okla. Tax Comm. & Okla. Assoc. of Elec. Self Insurers Fund v. State of Okla. Tax Comm., 2018 OK 54 (Okla. 2018). “1- 905, 907-908, 932 (as amended), 1204 (as amended), 3610, and 3611; 36 O.S. 2011 § 901.1(Oklahoma Insurance Rating Act regulating insurance rates "to the end they shall not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory"); 36 O.”
Oklahoma Inspection Bureau v. State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 406 P.2d 453 (Okla. 1965). · cites it 4× ““That the filing fails to meet the requirements of 36 O.S.1961, §§ 902 and 1003, in that the editorial revisions, amendments and deletions are not justified by the evidence.”
Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 40 A.3d 380 (Me. 2012). “” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 36, § 902 (2)(c) (West 2011).”
Stand. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 520 P.2d 672 (Okla. 1974). “36 O.S.1971, § 902(A) provides that rates for insurance shall not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”
Ins. Servs. Off. v. State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 530 P.2d 1359 (Okla. 1975). · cites it 3× “The order recites the purpose of the hearing was to make a determination if ISO’s rates were excessive in violation of 36 O.S.1971, § 902, subd. A and, if so, to comply with 36 O.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 902(A): 1 case
Stand. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 520 P.2d 672 (Okla. 1974). “36 O.S.1971, § 902(A) provides that rates for insurance shall not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 902(B): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Turpen v. Oklahoma State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 731 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1986). “" [19] The relevant portions of the Board's conclusions are: "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW That the rate filing on workers compensation rates made by the NCCI is adequate for full and complete deliberation by the State Board in determining the reasonableness of the proposed rate increase…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 902(G): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Turpen v. Oklahoma State Bd. for Prop. & Cas. Rates, 731 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1986). “" [19] The relevant portions of the Board's conclusions are: "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW That the rate filing on workers compensation rates made by the NCCI is adequate for full and complete deliberation by the State Board in determining the reasonableness of the proposed rate increase…”
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.