It is the single most common question we hear from clients after a crash with an uninsured or underinsured driver. They have the coverage. They paid the premiums for years. But the moment we tell them their own policy is the path to compensation, they hesitate.
“Wait. If I use my own insurance, won’t they just raise my rates? Or drop me?”
It is a fair fear, and it is one the insurance industry has done very little to dispel nationally. The good news for Californians is that the answer here is different than in most states. In California, your insurer generally cannot raise your premium or refuse to renew your policy just because you used your uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for a wreck that was not your fault. That protection is not a customer-service promise. It is the law, rooted in Proposition 103 and the rating regulations the California Department of Insurance enforces every day.
Here is what that actually means in practice, and where the real risks still hide.
The Short Answer, and the Statute Behind It
If you were not at fault, using your UM/UIM coverage should not, by itself, cause a lawful rate increase or non-renewal in California.
The legal anchor is California Insurance Code section 1861.02, which came out of Proposition 103, the 1988 ballot measure that overhauled how auto insurance is priced in this state. Under section 1861.02(a), an insurer setting your private passenger auto rate can only weight three mandatory factors and a limited list of optional factors approved by the Insurance Commissioner. The three mandatory factors are:
- Your driving safety record
- The number of miles you drive annually
- Your years of driving experience
Notice what is not on that list: “filed a claim against your own UM/UIM coverage.” That factor does not exist in the statute, and the Commissioner has not approved it as a rating factor. Insurers in California must file their class plans and rating plans with the Department of Insurance, and the Department reviews those filings to make sure they do not sneak in prohibited factors through the back door.
That is why California is one of the few states where carriers are barred from raising rates solely because you filed a UM/UIM claim for a no-fault accident. The carrier does not get to penalize you for exercising a coverage that another statute, Insurance Code section 11580.2, required them to offer you in the first place.
What “Not-At-Fault” Actually Means for Your Rates
Prop 103 lets insurers consider your “driving safety record,” and that is where the at-fault versus not-at-fault distinction matters. The Department of Insurance’s rating regulations in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations define how a carrier classifies an accident as “principally at-fault” or “not-at-fault” for rating purposes.
A few practical realities flow from those rules:
- An accident where the other driver was clearly liable is a not-at-fault loss for you.
- Not-at-fault losses cannot be used to surcharge your premium or to refuse to renew your policy.
- The fact that you collected through UM/UIM rather than the other driver’s liability policy does not change the at-fault analysis. What matters is who caused the crash, not which insurance company paid.
So if you are rear-ended by an uninsured driver at a red light, or sideswiped by someone carrying only the minimum liability limits that did not come close to covering your hospital bill, that is a not-at-fault event. When you open a UM/UIM claim with your own carrier, they are required to treat the underlying accident as not-at-fault for rating purposes.
Why the Insurance Industry’s National Reputation Worries California Clients
Most of what people read online about UM/UIM and rate hikes is written for a national audience. In many states, carriers can and do surcharge first-party claims, including UM/UIM. Stories from friends and family in Arizona, Texas, or Florida do not translate to California, because those states do not have Prop 103’s rate-filing structure or its restrictive list of allowable factors.
California is the outlier here, and it is the outlier in your favor.
The Department of Insurance’s consumer guidance reinforces this. The Department’s auto insurance materials describe how at-fault accidents and traffic violations can affect rates. They do not list “filing a UM/UIM claim” or “using your own coverage after a not-at-fault crash” as something insurers may use against you. If a carrier tried to surcharge based on that alone, the surcharge would not survive a rate filing review.
Where Real Risk to Your Premium Still Lives
Being honest with our clients means pointing out the situations where premiums can legitimately move, even when UM/UIM is involved.
Disputed fault. If the other driver’s insurer, or your own carrier, takes the position that you were principally at fault, the accident can be classified as an at-fault loss. That classification, not the UM/UIM claim itself, is what allows a surcharge. This is one of the biggest reasons we push clients to document the scene aggressively from the start. A clean liability picture protects both your bodily injury claim and your future premiums.
Multiple claims in a short period. A single not-at-fault UM/UIM claim is protected. A pattern of losses, including comprehensive or collision claims, can affect how a carrier views your overall risk profile at renewal. This is rare in practice for one accident, but worth knowing.
Switching carriers. When you shop for a new policy, the new carrier will look at your CLUE report (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange), which lists prior claims. Even a not-at-fault loss can show up there. California’s rules limit how that information can be used to set your rate, but it is not invisible. We sometimes see clients quoted a higher rate by a new carrier, even when their current carrier would have renewed them at the same price. If that happens, push back and ask whether the higher rate is based on a permitted Prop 103 factor.
Policy non-renewal for unrelated reasons. A carrier cannot non-renew you for using UM/UIM after a not-at-fault crash, but they can non-renew for other lawful reasons, like a license suspension or a separate at-fault accident. Do not confuse coincidence with cause.
What Recent Legislative Changes Do and Do Not Do
Heading into 2026, the auto insurance landscape in California has shifted in a few ways, but none of those changes weaken the UM/UIM rate protection we have described.
The most visible recent change is the increase in minimum liability limits under SB 1107, which took effect at the start of 2025. Those higher minimums affect what at-fault drivers must carry, but they do not change Prop 103’s rating rules or section 11580.2’s UM/UIM framework. If anything, the slightly higher liability minimums mean a few injured Californians may now have their medical bills fully covered by the at-fault driver’s policy without needing UM/UIM at all. For serious injuries, though, the new minimums are still not enough, and UM/UIM remains the lifeline it has always been.
There is no new statute on the books that authorizes surcharges for UM/UIM users. The Department of Insurance continues to enforce Prop 103’s rate-filing limits, and the Commissioner continues to reject filings that try to penalize not-at-fault claimants.
Why This Matters for Your Injury Recovery
We bring this up with clients because the fear of a rate hike sometimes causes real harm. We have seen injured people delay treatment, skip imaging, or settle for far less than they need, all because they were afraid that calling their own insurer would cost them at renewal.
John Reardon spent 20 years as a chiropractor before practicing law, and that medical background shapes how we look at this issue. Soft-tissue injuries, disc injuries, and concussions often need months of consistent treatment to heal properly and to be documented well enough to support a full-value claim. When a client backs off treatment because they are worried about a $30 monthly premium bump that, by law, should not even happen, the real cost is measured in undertreated injuries and undervalued settlements.
UM/UIM exists for exactly this situation. You paid for it. California law protects you when you use it. Skipping the claim out of fear is the wrong trade.
The Bottom Line
If you were not at fault and your only insurance option is your own UM/UIM coverage, use it. California Insurance Code section 1861.02 limits what your carrier can charge you based on, and a not-at-fault UM/UIM claim is not on the approved list. Insurance Code section 11580.2 guarantees the coverage. The Department of Insurance’s rating regulations close the loop by classifying the accident properly.
If your insurer raises your rates or threatens non-renewal after a not-at-fault UM/UIM claim, that is a problem worth challenging, and the Department of Insurance has a formal complaint process designed for exactly that scenario.
If you were hurt by an uninsured or underinsured driver in California and you are not sure whether to open a UM/UIM claim, talk to us before you make a decision based on fear. We will walk you through how the claim will be handled, what the rating rules actually allow, and what your case is realistically worth. The consultation is free, and you owe us nothing unless we win your case. Call Reardon Injury Law at (657) 522-7122 to speak with our team.