Which U.S. states ban or limit the use of marital status in auto insurance pricing?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A small but growing set of states either prohibit or restrict insurers from using marital status when setting auto insurance rates: notable full bans include Hawaii, Massachusetts and Michigan, while several states have narrower protections — especially for widows and widowers — or statutory limits on how large a role marital status may play [1] [2] [3]. The policy landscape is fragmented: regulators and consumer advocates push restraints on the grounds of fairness, while insurers defend marital status as actuarially relevant in some jurisdictions [4] [2].
1. The current national landscape — fragmented rules and “optional” factors
Most U.S. states allow insurers to consider marital status as one of many optional rating factors, with only a handful adopting outright bans or specific limits; state-by-state filings and regulatory approvals govern exactly how insurers may use that data [2] [5]. Industry summaries and consumer guides reiterate that driving record, miles driven and years of experience are typically treated as primary or mandatory rating elements, while marital status often sits as a secondary factor whose permitted weight varies by state [4] [2].
2. States that the reporting identifies as full bans
Multiple industry and consumer-facing sources list Hawaii, Massachusetts and Michigan as states that do not permit marital status to be used in auto rate-setting — Michigan’s prohibition was part of a 2019 reform that barred gender, marital status and several other personal characteristics from pricing beginning in 2020, and consumer and comparison sites likewise identify Hawaii and Massachusetts as full bans [2] [1] [5].
3. Partial bans and protections for widows, plus recent state action
A separate thread in the record shows more focused prohibitions: Maryland and New Jersey have statutory or regulatory limits that prevent insurers from raising premiums on a customer because a spouse has died, and Rhode Island enacted a law (effective 2025) specifically stopping premium hikes for widows and widowers — demonstrating a trend toward targeted protections rather than blanket prohibitions in some legislatures [3] [6]. Sources also report other states with nuanced or partial restrictions — for example, press summaries and consumer guides name Pennsylvania among jurisdictions that limit use of marital status in certain contexts — but the limits and statutory language differ across states [3] [7].
4. Conflicting lists, data caveats and competing narratives
Published compilations vary: one consumer-facing guide lists additional states (Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, Wyoming) as places where marital status is not used, but those claims conflict with other state-by-state summaries and with regulator filings, underscoring inconsistency across secondary sources and the need to check state statutes or insurance department bulletins for a definitive answer [8] [2]. The insurance industry emphasizes actuarial justification — regulators in several states allow marital status only if insurers can show statistical backing — while consumer advocates such as the Consumer Federation of America argue marital-status pricing can be arbitrary and harmful, especially to widows [2] [4].
5. Bottom line and reporting limits
Based on the assembled reporting, consumers can reliably point to Hawaii, Massachusetts and Michigan as states that ban use of marital status in auto insurance pricing, and to a smaller group of states (including Maryland, New Jersey and Rhode Island) that have enacted narrower protections, particularly for widows and widowers; beyond those examples the legal picture varies by statute, regulation and insurer filings, and secondary sources disagree on a handful of states, so confirming with a state insurance department or the insurer’s rate filing is necessary for a definitive, current roster [1] [2] [3] [6]. The available sources do not provide a single, authoritative nationwide list up to date to the day, and this summary respects those limits rather than asserting coverage where the reporting is inconsistent [8] [2].