SB 1315, the Drive My Car Act, prevents admitted insurers in California from increasing premiums, imposing surcharges, or conditioning coverage on a policyholder’s decision not to engage advanced autonomous driving systems (SAE Levels 3–5). It also bars insurers from treating low autonomous engagement as a risk factor and from requiring system use as a condition for issuing or renewing policies.
The bill creates enforcement tools: violations are an unfair insurance practice under existing law, the commissioner may assess administrative penalties up to $10,000 per violation after hearing, policyholders get a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief, and all related rate filings require prior approval. The statute aims to preserve consumer choice and constrain insurers from using pricing to steer drivers toward—or punish them for declining—automated driving modes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits admitted insurers from increasing premiums, applying surcharges, or changing policy terms based on a policyholder’s nonuse or low use of SAE Level 3–5 autonomous driving systems, and forbids requiring system engagement as a condition of coverage. It defines key terms, limits the statute’s scope to systems that assume primary control, and establishes administrative and private enforcement remedies plus prior approval for rate filings.
Who It Affects
Admitted insurers writing private passenger auto insurance in California, policyholders who own vehicles equipped with SAE Level 3–5 systems, the California Department of Insurance (commissioner), and entities that collect or supply autonomous engagement data (OEMs and telematics providers).
Why It Matters
The bill constrains insurers from using pricing to accelerate adoption of high‑level automation and protects drivers who prefer manual operation from being financially penalized. For insurers and actuaries, it limits a potential new usage-based rating variable tied to autonomous engagement and raises measurement and regulatory-compliance questions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1315 frames its policy around consumer choice: the Legislature declares that drivers should be free to decide whether to use advanced automated driving without facing insurance penalties. The statute then sets definitional guardrails.
It imports the SAE J3016 Level 3–5 taxonomy, limits coverage to systems that assume primary control, and creates the term “autonomous engagement rate” to describe the share of time or distance a system actively controls the vehicle. It also defines “base rate” as the premium computed from traditional, authorized rating factors excluding any consideration of autonomous system use.
The operative prohibition is straightforward but narrow: insurers may not raise premiums, apply surcharges, or alter policy terms ‘‘based solely or partially’’ on a policyholder’s decision not to activate an advanced autonomous system, a low engagement rate, or a preference for manual operation. The bill similarly forbids insurers from conditioning issuance or renewal on use of such systems, or from imposing fees on nonusers that are not imposed on users.
These constraints apply only to SAE Levels 3–5 systems that take over primary driving tasks rather than incremental driver-assist features.On enforcement, the bill designates violations as unfair practices under Section 790.03(h), authorizing the commissioner to pursue administrative penalties up to $10,000 per violation after notice and hearing. It also creates a private right of action allowing policyholders to seek actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
Separately, the bill requires that all rate filings under this chapter receive prior approval from the commissioner before they take effect, giving the regulator formal oversight of any insurer attempts to incorporate autonomous engagement into pricing.Although the text blocks certain insurer behaviors, it leaves several operational questions open: how to measure and verify ‘‘autonomous engagement rate’’ in practice, how to treat mixed-mode driving or Level 3 conditional handoffs, and how insurers should document actuarial justification if they claim a link between engagement and crash risk. Those implementation details will fall to insurers, telematics vendors, and the Department of Insurance during compliance and rate-review processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The prohibition applies only to SAE Level 3–5 systems as defined by SAE J3016; lower-level driver assistance features are outside the statute’s coverage.
The bill defines “autonomous engagement rate” as the percentage of driving time or distance the system actively controls the vehicle—a metric insurers would need to collect or validate to use as a rating variable.
Insurers cannot require system use to obtain or renew coverage, cannot nonrenew or cancel based on nonuse, and cannot apply surcharges to nonusers that are not applied to users (see 1849.3(c)).
Violations are an unfair insurance practice under Section 790.03(h); the commissioner may impose administrative fines up to $10,000 per violation after notice and hearing (1849.4(b)).
Policyholders get a private right of action for actual damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees, and the bill requires prior approval of relevant rate filings by the commissioner (1849.4(c),(e)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and legislative purpose
This section lays out why the Legislature is acting: it acknowledges safety gains from advanced automation but frames the principal policy goal as protecting consumer choice and preventing insurance-based coercion. Practically, these findings signal legislative intent—courts and regulators will read ambiguity in later sections against the use of insurance pricing to force adoption of automation.
Definitions and scope limits
The statute borrows SAE J3016’s Level 3–5 definitions and creates two operational terms—“autonomous engagement rate” and “base rate.” By tying coverage to SAE levels and to systems that ‘‘assume primary control,’’ the bill excludes ordinary driver-assist features (e.g., basic lane-keeping) and focuses regulatory effect on systems capable of handling the dynamic driving task. The base rate definition also directs actuaries to separate traditional rating factors authorized under Section 1861.02 from any autonomous‑use considerations.
Prohibitions on underwriting and rating based on nonuse or low use
This is the substantive heart of the bill: insurers may not increase premiums or impose other charges ‘based solely or partially’ on nonuse, low engagement, or a preference for manual operation. The section also forbids conditioning coverage on system use, nonrenewal, cancellation, or altering coverage terms for nonusers, and bans user‑specific surcharges. The ‘‘solely or partially’’ phrasing is broad—insurers will need to be cautious about any pricing practice that even indirectly references autonomous engagement.
Enforcement, remedies, and private actions
The bill treats violations as unfair insurance practices enforceable under existing law and gives the commissioner authority to levy administrative penalties up to $10,000 per violation after hearing. It also creates a private right of action for policyholders to recover actual damages, seek injunctions, and recover attorney fees. Those cumulative remedies mean both regulator-initiated enforcement and private litigation are available, raising the potential for parallel challenges to insurer practices.
Rate filing and prior approval requirement
All rate filings affected by this chapter are subject to prior approval by the commissioner and cannot become effective until approved. That gives the Department of Insurance a gatekeeping role to review any insurer attempts to incorporate autonomous engagement metrics into pricing—either as discounts for users or surcharges for nonusers—and creates an administrative review pathway for contested actuarial assumptions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Drivers who prefer manual control or decline automation — they are protected from premium increases, surcharges, or coverage conditions tied to nonuse of SAE Level 3–5 systems.
- Privacy‑concerned vehicle owners — by restricting insurer incentives tied to engagement metrics, the bill reduces pressure to share detailed vehicle control data with insurers.
- Consumer advocates and civil‑liberties groups — the statute gives an enforceable toolbox (regulatory penalties and private suits) to resist insurance practices that would financially coerce adoption of automation.
- Regulators — the Department of Insurance gains explicit authority to review and block insurer rate designs that attempt to price for autonomous engagement without approval.
Who Bears the Cost
- Admitted insurers writing private passenger auto policies — they cannot use autonomous engagement as a rating variable and may need to revise actuarial models, rate filings, and product designs.
- Telematics vendors and OEMs offering engagement telemetry — reduced insurer demand for engagement data could shrink a potential revenue stream and complicate data-sharing arrangements.
- Insurers that currently offer discounts for automation users — these carriers will need to justify discounts under other lawful rating factors or eliminate them if they depend on engagement metrics.
- California Department of Insurance — the commissioner will face increased administrative workload to review rate filings, adjudicate notices and hearings, and enforce the statute, with corresponding resource implications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate goals: protecting drivers from being financially coerced into adopting a technology and allowing insurers to price accurately based on measurable risk indicators. SB 1315 privileges consumer choice and regulatory review over insurer experimentation with autonomous‑use metrics, but that choice may come at the cost of losing a potentially predictive rating variable and changing how insurers allocate premiums across the risk pool.
The statute draws bright lines around insurer conduct but leaves measurement and causation unsettled. ‘‘Autonomous engagement rate’’ sounds measurable, but SB 1315 does not specify data standards, sampling windows, or dispute-resolution procedures for contested engagement records. That gap creates room for disputes about what counts as ‘‘active control’’—particularly for Level 3 systems where control transfers between driver and system are occasional and context-dependent.
Another unresolved tension is between preserving consumer choice and insurers’ actuarial freedom. Insurers will argue that engagement correlates with risk and that forbidding its use forces them to rely on cruder proxies or to reprice across the board, potentially shifting costs.
The bill’s ‘‘solely or partially’’ ban is broad and could capture indirect pricing strategies; insurers may respond by pursuing other risk indicators or by seeking regulatory relief to use limited engagement data. Finally, the ‘‘except as otherwise permitted’’ carveout for certain actions (1849.3(c)(2)) is vague and could become a focal point for litigation or administrative rulemaking as stakeholders press for exceptions for demonstrably actuarial practices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.