Backers of auto-insurance measure sue over ballot pamphlet language
Backers of a ballot measure to change California’s auto-insurance rules filed a lawsuit Thursday arguing that their opponents lied in their ballot-pamphlet arguments.
Proposition 17’s supporters contend that the measure would simply make “continuous coverage discounts” portable so motorists can change insurers without losing their accrued time.
Opponents say it would let insurers penalize people who have missed just one payment, or who weren’t driving for a while and let their insurance lapse during that time.
Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, or Cal-FAIR, filed the lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against Secretary of State Debra Bowen and names six people as parties: the state printer who publishes ballot pamphlets sent to California voters; three consumer advocates who co-authored the pamphlet argument against Prop. 17; and Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, and former state Attorney General John Van de Kamp, co-authors of the pamphlet rebuttal to arguments for the measure.
According to the suit, the opponents are intentionally misleading voters by claiming the measure creates new penalties.
“Proposition 17 simply allows responsible drivers who already qualify for a continuous coverage discount to take that discount with them if they change insurance companies,” said Cal-FAIR co-chairman Kirk West, a former California Chamber of Commerce president.
“Throughout this campaign, opponents have
misled and attempted to confuse voters. Their ballot arguments and rebuttals are more of the same statements.
“(T)hey understand that the so-called ‘penalties’ they speak of are attributable to current law and not to Prop. 17,” he continued.
“Yet they are hiding behind false and misleading statements because they are afraid to acknowledge taking an anti-consumer position on Prop. 17 by opposing a measure that will result in more competition and more choice for more than 80 percent of California drivers.”
More than $3.51 million of Cal-FAIR’s $3.58 million campaign war chest came from insurance giant Mercury General Corp. Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield, one of the ballot-pamphlet argument co-authors named in the suit, said he looks forward to seeing Mercury in court.
“For months, Mercury has been lying to the public, to state officials and to the news media about its June ballot initiative,” he said. “Indeed, for more than 10 years, the Department of Insurance and the courts have repeatedly concluded that Mercury’s proposal would create a new rating factor — the consideration of prior insurance history — that is currently illegal.”
“The fact is that today, under current law, if you stop driving you won’t pay more when you restart your insurance coverage,” Rosenfield continued. “If Mercury’s Prop. 17 passes, insurance companies will be allowed to charge a lot more to good drivers who didn’t need insurance when they weren’t driving, or who missed a single payment, or who chose to forego coverage because of the economy or illness.”
Cal-FAIR also plans to challenge the new title and summary that state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office prepared for the measure, which says it would let insurers raise rates.
A Cal-FAIR spokeswoman said that because an outdated title and summary appear in documents on the Secretary of State’s Web site, Brown’s office must go to court to insert the new language; Cal-FAIR will intervene in that process.