Montana Judge Upholds Law Allowing Insurers to Consider Marital Status

Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to 2021 Legislation

HELENA, Mont. — A Montana judge has ruled that a state law allowing insurance companies to consider marital status when setting rates does not violate the Montana Constitution.

Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan issued the decision in a challenge to House Bill 379, a 2021 law that overturned a 1985 rule banning insurers from using marital status to determine premiums. The ruling was praised by Montana Auditor and Commissioner of Securities and Insurance James Brown, whose office defended the law in court.

The case was brought by a group of individuals and organizations represented by the Upper Seven Law Firm. They argued the law violated the state constitution’s equal protection clause and also constituted “special legislation,” which is prohibited under Montana law.

Plaintiffs Argued Law Was Discriminatory

The plaintiffs said allowing insurers to consider marital status results in higher premiums for some people. One individual in the case said he paid 6.2% more because he was single.

The lawsuit claimed the policy discriminated against unmarried individuals and unfairly favored insurance companies. It also argued the measure amounted to special legislation designed to benefit a particular industry.

House Bill 379, sponsored by Rep. Sue Vinton, R-Billings, allows insurers to consider both sex and marital status when calculating rates. Supporters say the factors help insurers better evaluate risk when determining premiums.

Judge Finds No Constitutional Violation

Menahan rejected the constitutional arguments in a 12-page ruling. He said that while the Montana Constitution lists several protected classes, marital status is not one of them.

“The clause does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status,” Menahan wrote.

Because marital status is not protected under the constitution, Menahan said the law only needs to serve a legitimate government interest. He concluded that the state’s interest in keeping insurance rates lower meets that standard.

“Simply because a statute discriminates on the basis of marital status does not mean the statute is irrational,” Menahan said.

Experts Testified on Insurance Risk

During the case, experts testified that marital status can affect insurance risk and therefore premiums.

Shawn Kraft, co-owner of Leavitt Great West Insurance Company, said married people are less likely to make insurance claims than single individuals. He also noted that 42 states and the District of Columbia offer discounts to married couples.

Actuarial expert Ryan Purdy testified that insurance rate calculations are complex. He said married people tend to drive slightly more, which increases risk, but they also engage in less risky driving behavior overall, which lowers risk.

Menahan concluded that differences in premiums between single and married individuals could be explained by actuarial data, making the practice a logical method for insurers.

Court Rejects Special Legislation Claim

The plaintiffs also argued the law violated a constitutional provision that bans “special or local acts.” They claimed HB 379 gave insurance companies unique treatment compared with other industries.

Menahan disagreed, writing that the law applies to all insurers in the same way. Because the classification affects every company equally, he said it does not violate the constitution.

Brown welcomed the ruling and criticized the challenge.

“This is another case where a special interest group ran to the courts to try to overturn a common-sense law passed by the Montana Legislature,” Brown said in a written statement. “The idea that government should ban insurance companies from looking at sex and marital status when setting policy rates the very definition of big government overreach and nonsensical meddling.”