Michigan Senate Bill SB0328

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/29/25
• Refer: 5/29/25

Caption

Insurance: automobile; rate reductions; require. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 2111g.

Summary

Senate Bill 328 would amend Michigan’s Insurance Code to require automobile insurers to reduce the total premium on certain policies by 10%. The reduction would apply to new auto insurance policies issued after the bill’s effective date and to the first renewal of any auto policy already in force on that date. The bill ties the reduction to rates filed and approved under existing insurance law, meaning the discount would be applied within the state’s current rate-regulation framework. The bill also states that insurers may not offset the required premium reduction by lowering or removing coverage that the insured requested. In other words, policyholders should receive the mandated 10% price reduction without losing benefits or protections they chose to purchase. The measure is aimed at directly lowering auto insurance costs for Michigan drivers while preserving coverage levels.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would add a new section 2111g to the Michigan Insurance Code and impose a mandatory premium reduction requirement on auto insurers for qualifying new and renewed policies. It would affect insurers writing automobile insurance in Michigan and would likely influence how rates are filed, approved, and implemented for the first policy term covered by the law. The bill does not change the substantive types of coverage available, but it limits insurers’ ability to respond to the mandated discount by reducing coverage.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears consumer-oriented and intended to reduce auto insurance costs, which suggests a generally pro-policyholder purpose. However, without hearing testimony or votes, the overall sentiment among lawmakers and stakeholders cannot be determined from the provided materials.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the mandatory nature of the 10% premium reduction. Insurers may view the requirement as interfering with rate-setting and pricing flexibility, especially because it applies to new policies and first renewals. Consumer advocates or supporters, by contrast, would likely favor the bill as a direct cost-saving measure for drivers. Another possible issue is whether the mandated reduction could affect insurer profitability or lead to changes in how companies structure offerings, though the bill expressly prohibits reducing requested coverage to compensate for the lower premium.