California’s unwritten laws include the exclusion of credit for rating and underwriting purposes in personal lines. Another challenge for consumers is the awarding of $500+ per hour to outside “consumer groups” (really non-marketable trial attorneys and actuaries) as third party interveners to filings. Proposition 103 proponents take undeserved credit for saving created by legal reforms in the late 1980s.
If memory serves me correctly, Prop 103 was written and put on the ballot by the very same people who are the $500+ per hour interveners you mention. Between greedy people like that and our elected legislators, there is no safe ground for the California public.
The California Department of Insurance refers to themselves on their website and in press releases as California’s largest consumer advocacy organization. I can’t find that purpose defined for them in any part of the Insurance Code or Regulations. I live and work in California and I think R Street seems objective and credible, Mr. Deputy Commissioner. It may be the extremists working in government that have lost objectivity and credibility.
Did any of ya read all 5 of the Personal Auto Insurance initiative (or Proposition) statements on your 1988 sample ballot? I did. The voting public was confused. Prop 103 barely passed, 51%-49%, or 5.1M votes to 4.9M votes; Prop 104 would have given us No-Fault but no one wanted to give up the right to sue (although 104 had a provision saying you could sue if the injuries were serious and/or permanent). We’ve had Roxani Gillespie, Chuck Quackenbush, Dave Jones and other Commissioners since then. They inherited Prop 103 and are not responsible for it, but they are responsible for its enforcement. Harvey Rosenfield, aka Voter Revolt (at the time) is the main party responsible for both its passage as well as for the abuse of $500+/hr. fees. Having an elected vs. an appointed Comm. is like the pendulum swinging back and forth, and that changes over time, with different political constituencies. The report says we’re high in Personal Auto satisfaction largely because 103 makes it easy for consumers to shop Co. X vs. Co. Y vs. Co. Z, all of them having to have similar coverage, making comparisons easy. Having a Prop 103-like solution to the Health Insurance abuses is the next thing which needs to happen. It may piss off R Street, but they’re not in CA. Worker’s Compensation needs an overhaul as well. While we’re at it, how can a carrier which writes both Personal & Commercial Lines not block the Personal Lines market, but is to block the Commercial Lines market, requiring a BOR? I feel the CA Insurance market still needs much more positive change
Hi SacFlood: Proposition 103 does not make it easier for consumers to compare markets. It really restricts their freedom to capitalize on the lowest rates. For instance, consumers with higher credit scores are able to obtain better rates on private passenger auto in other states. A Prop 103-like solution does not resolve the challenges in health care and workers compensation, it only gets in the way. Figuring out how to reduce the underlying costs such as legal reform will reduce costs in the long term.
California’s unwritten laws include the exclusion of credit for rating and underwriting purposes in personal lines. Another challenge for consumers is the awarding of $500+ per hour to outside “consumer groups” (really non-marketable trial attorneys and actuaries) as third party interveners to filings. Proposition 103 proponents take undeserved credit for saving created by legal reforms in the late 1980s.
If memory serves me correctly, Prop 103 was written and put on the ballot by the very same people who are the $500+ per hour interveners you mention. Between greedy people like that and our elected legislators, there is no safe ground for the California public.
The California Department of Insurance refers to themselves on their website and in press releases as California’s largest consumer advocacy organization. I can’t find that purpose defined for them in any part of the Insurance Code or Regulations. I live and work in California and I think R Street seems objective and credible, Mr. Deputy Commissioner. It may be the extremists working in government that have lost objectivity and credibility.
Did any of ya read all 5 of the Personal Auto Insurance initiative (or Proposition) statements on your 1988 sample ballot? I did. The voting public was confused. Prop 103 barely passed, 51%-49%, or 5.1M votes to 4.9M votes; Prop 104 would have given us No-Fault but no one wanted to give up the right to sue (although 104 had a provision saying you could sue if the injuries were serious and/or permanent). We’ve had Roxani Gillespie, Chuck Quackenbush, Dave Jones and other Commissioners since then. They inherited Prop 103 and are not responsible for it, but they are responsible for its enforcement. Harvey Rosenfield, aka Voter Revolt (at the time) is the main party responsible for both its passage as well as for the abuse of $500+/hr. fees. Having an elected vs. an appointed Comm. is like the pendulum swinging back and forth, and that changes over time, with different political constituencies. The report says we’re high in Personal Auto satisfaction largely because 103 makes it easy for consumers to shop Co. X vs. Co. Y vs. Co. Z, all of them having to have similar coverage, making comparisons easy. Having a Prop 103-like solution to the Health Insurance abuses is the next thing which needs to happen. It may piss off R Street, but they’re not in CA. Worker’s Compensation needs an overhaul as well. While we’re at it, how can a carrier which writes both Personal & Commercial Lines not block the Personal Lines market, but is to block the Commercial Lines market, requiring a BOR? I feel the CA Insurance market still needs much more positive change
Hi SacFlood: Proposition 103 does not make it easier for consumers to compare markets. It really restricts their freedom to capitalize on the lowest rates. For instance, consumers with higher credit scores are able to obtain better rates on private passenger auto in other states. A Prop 103-like solution does not resolve the challenges in health care and workers compensation, it only gets in the way. Figuring out how to reduce the underlying costs such as legal reform will reduce costs in the long term.