Midwest News

Michigan Court Upholds Ban on Credit Scoring in Insurance

Insurance companies in Michigan no longer will be able to use customers' credit scores to set home and auto insurance premiums if a state Court of Appeals ruling stands.

Advertisement

The 2-1 decision released Friday, August 22 reversed a 2005 ruling by a lower judge who blocked the state insurance office's ban against credit-based insurance rates.

Most large insurers in Michigan use some form of credit scoring to give premium discounts. Generally, the better one's credit score, the lower a customer's insurance premium will be. One with a worse score usually pays a higher rate.

Insurers will continue using credit scores pending the outcome of an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Critics said the practice is unfair, illegal and disproportionately affects minorities, younger insurance holders and the poor.

"Time and time again studies have shown that credit reports are unreliable and are not good barometers of a person's insurability,'' said state Sen. Martha Scott, D-Highland Park. "I believe insurance companies use this method to cherry pick the more financially attractive customers and to punish our low-income consumers.''


The industry disagreed and said customers receiving discounts for good credit scores will pay higher premiums if the ban takes effect.

"The use of credit has proven to be an effective and efficient tool to evaluate risk,'' said Peter Kuhnmuench, executive director of the Insurance Institute of Michigan, a trade group of insurance companies.

One national trade group agreed.

"We are disappointed with yesterday's Michigan court ruling, as credit scoring has been shown to greatly benefit consumers," said Ann Weber, Property Casualty Insurers Associatin of America (PCI) vice president and regional manager. "Credit information is more likely to help consumers obtain lower insurance rates. PCI supports the ability of insurers to use this tool because it has proven to be a very accurate predictor of the risk of loss."

Insurers use credit information in developing credit-based insurance scores to predict the likelihood of future insurance loss. Much like factors such as years of driving experience, previous crashes, and the age of a vehicle or home, credit scores are a way for insurance companies to differentiate between lower and higher insurance risks.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said the ruling is "great news'' that will lower rates for many residents.

Insurers sued in 2005 to prevent then-insurance commissioner Linda Watters from implementing rules reducing base rates and barring discounts to policyholders with good credit ratings. Barry County Circuit Judge James Fisher declared the rules illegal and unenforceable.

But the appeals court said Fisher wrongly considered additional evidence instead of limiting his review to the administrative rule-making record. The fractured panel found little else to agree on in three separate opinions, including whether the trial judge even should have heard the lawsuit because there is another way to challenge regulatory decisions.

Judge Helene White said credit scoring is not a rating factor that can be used for auto and home insurance. Insurers can offer discounts not allowed specifically by state law, but people's credit scores do not reflect "reasonably anticipated'' reductions in companies' losses or expenses, she wrote.

Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly agreed to reverse Fisher's ruling but did not address the legality of credit scoring.

In a dissent, Judge Brian Zahra said the Office of Financial and Insurance Services, now the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation _ overstepped its authority.

"The OFIS has no authority to order rate reductions without first determining that an insurer's rates are excessive,'' Zahra wrote.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article

Subject Posted By Posted On
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... caveat emptor
Aug 28, 2008, 9:28 am
this sentence is the problem caveat emptor
Aug 28, 2008, 9:19 am
rates Einstein
Aug 27, 2008, 3:39 pm
Credit Scoring Garry Lloyd
Aug 27, 2008, 3:19 pm
RE: RE: Reality? Challenged Creditee
Aug 27, 2008, 1:48 pm
RE: RE: Reality? Einstein
Aug 26, 2008, 11:37 am
RE: Reality? Ratemaker
Aug 26, 2008, 11:31 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? - B Ratemaker
Aug 26, 2008, 11:29 am
RE: Reality? nobody important
Aug 26, 2008, 11:09 am
Reality? Einstein
Aug 26, 2008, 10:57 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? nobody important
Aug 26, 2008, 10:23 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? B
Aug 26, 2008, 10:01 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? nobody important
Aug 26, 2008, 9:58 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Dawn
Aug 26, 2008, 9:20 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? nobody important
Aug 26, 2008, 8:53 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Dawn
Aug 26, 2008, 8:41 am
Dear underwriter Einstein
Aug 25, 2008, 8:05 pm
RE: RE: Firm Numbers Underwriter
Aug 25, 2008, 5:09 pm
RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Reality
Aug 25, 2008, 3:40 pm
RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Dawn
Aug 25, 2008, 3:36 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Nobody Important
Aug 25, 2008, 2:31 pm
Analyst Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 2:03 pm
RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Analyst
Aug 25, 2008, 1:59 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... No Bias Here
Aug 25, 2008, 1:51 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... John Scrader
Aug 25, 2008, 1:36 pm
RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Einstein
Aug 25, 2008, 1:35 pm
RE: RE: Try Another Approach Esad
Aug 25, 2008, 1:31 pm
RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 1:29 pm
RE: Lower rates for some? Analyst
Aug 25, 2008, 1:17 pm
RE: Try Another Approach Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 1:11 pm
RE: RAD Esad
Aug 25, 2008, 1:01 pm
Try Another Approach Think Differently
Aug 25, 2008, 1:00 pm
RE: RAD Reality
Aug 25, 2008, 12:59 pm
RAD Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 12:50 pm
RE: RE: Firm Numbers Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 12:48 pm
RE: Firm Numbers RAD
Aug 25, 2008, 12:47 pm
RE: RE: Firm Numbers Logical
Aug 25, 2008, 12:45 pm
RE: Firm Numbers Agree
Aug 25, 2008, 12:33 pm
RE: Firm Numbers Larry Erickson
Aug 25, 2008, 12:26 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... Larry Erickson
Aug 25, 2008, 12:20 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? SWFL Mark
Aug 25, 2008, 12:05 pm
RE: RE: RE: Lower rates for some? Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 11:28 am
RE: RE: Lower rates for some? nobody important
Aug 25, 2008, 11:25 am
RE: Lower rates for some? Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 11:20 am
Firm Numbers Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 11:16 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... John Scrader
Aug 25, 2008, 11:10 am
Lower rates for some? low rate payer
Aug 25, 2008, 11:05 am
RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... nobody important
Aug 25, 2008, 10:09 am
RE: RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... Ratemaker
Aug 25, 2008, 10:01 am
RE: RE: The problem with credit scoring.... Mr. Solvent
Aug 25, 2008, 9:35 am
RE: The problem with credit scoring.... nobody important
Aug 25, 2008, 9:15 am
GEICO & PGR Direct Rick
Aug 25, 2008, 9:00 am
The problem with credit scoring.... John Scrader
Aug 25, 2008, 8:34 am
Great State nobody important
Aug 25, 2008, 7:23 am
not "reasonably expected?!?!?!" Ratemaker
Aug 25, 2008, 7:06 am