Where ZIP code and rating territory may be used to set car-insurance rates (2026)
Geography is the rating factor with the largest measurable effect in the published data, and the one state law addresses most awkwardly.
The distinction that matters is between a ZIP code and a rating territory. A ZIP code is a postal artefact; a rating territory is a boundary the insurer draws and files with the regulator. At least one state bans the first by name and expressly permits the second, which is a real limit on granularity rather than a ban on geographic rating.
Another state restricts territory rating by requiring that it not dominate the driver-specific factors, ordering the permitted factors by importance in statute and putting driving record, mileage and years of experience above everything else.
The published data shows why this is contested. For a single profile, held identical in every other respect, the median filed rate in Nevada runs from $1,685 in Fallon to $5,044 in North Las Vegas, a gap of 199.3% for the same driver buying the same cover in the same state.
| Jurisdiction | ZIP code | Territory | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Alaska | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Arizona | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Arkansas | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| California | Restricted Rates are determined by driving safety record, annual miles driven and years of driving experience, in decreasing order of importance; weighting mechanics are in 10 CCR §2632.8(d). | No restriction found | Cal. Ins. Code §1861.02(a) |
| Colorado | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Connecticut | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Delaware | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| District of Columbia | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Florida | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Georgia | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Hawaii | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Idaho | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Illinois | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Indiana | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Iowa | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Kansas | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Kentucky | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Louisiana | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Maine | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Maryland | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Massachusetts | Restricted Garaging address may be used for rating, not underwriting. | No restriction found | MA Division of Insurance |
| Michigan | Banned | No restriction found | Mich. Comp. Laws §500.2111(5) |
| Minnesota | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Mississippi | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Missouri | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Montana | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Nebraska | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Nevada | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| New Hampshire | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| New Jersey | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| New Mexico | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| New York | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| North Carolina | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| North Dakota | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Ohio | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Oklahoma | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Oregon | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Pennsylvania | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Rhode Island | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| South Carolina | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| South Dakota | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Tennessee | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Texas | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Utah | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Vermont | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Virginia | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Washington | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| West Virginia | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Wisconsin | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
| Wyoming | No restriction found | No restriction found | — |
Source of record: each jurisdiction’s own statute text, corroborated against its insurance department or motor-vehicle agency. 45 jurisdictions carry values confirmed against primary text; the rest show no figure until the primary text is read.
Other rules across every jurisdiction
Questions
- Why does the same driver pay so differently a few miles away?
- Because claim frequency, repair costs, theft and litigation rates differ by area, and the rating territory is where insurers encode that. The size of the effect in one state’s own published survey is shown above.
Statutory records last verified against primary sources on 10 August 2026. Every cell in the table above is read from a committed record with its own citation; nothing here is copied from a secondary comparison.