Risk pricing and price tolerance are different
Michigan enacted an explicit ban on property-and-casualty insurance price optimization September 21. Public Act 98 calls it an unfair method of competition or deceptive practice to use the defined technique in ratemaking. The change offers a fresh consumer-rights benchmark for renewal season.
The statute defines the prohibited practice as price-tolerance-based adjustments that are not actuarially justified and rely on factors unrelated to risk of loss or expense. It specifically includes estimating willingness to pay more and measuring consumers' price elasticity of demand.
The ban is not an automatic refund
The law also identifies consideration of likely policy turnover, including shopping for lower prices, canceling, failing to renew or complaining. That is different from saying every premium difference is illegal: the statutory definition concerns the reason for an unjustified adjustment, not only the size of two bills.
An increased renewal price alone does not prove the prohibited practice or establish a refund amount. Keep the renewal notice, coverage details and insurer explanation if asking why a rate changed. The law is narrower and more useful than a promise that loyal customers now automatically receive cheaper coverage. It puts the question of risk-based justification into focus without removing normal policy and rating differences.