By Dale Kasler, THE SACRAMENTO BEE
Legal road rage has broken out over the language in Proposition 17, a June ballot measure sponsored by auto insurer Mercury General Corp.
Prominent consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield, a staunch opponent of Proposition 17, sued Thursday to force Mercury and its allies to re-write sections of the ballot pamphlet that will be mailed to voters.
Mercury “is attempting to put one over on the voters,” says Rosenfield’s suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court.
His suit is in direct response to a suit filed a week ago by pro-17 forces in the same court. They’re demanding changes in the “rebuttal” language attacking Proposition 17 that Rosenfield proposes to include in the ballot pamphlets.
The proposition, set for the June 8 primary ballot, revolves around the complexities of discounts offered to California motorists who have been continuously covered by the same insurer.
The discounts aren’t portable. A motorist who’s switching companies, or wasn’t previously insured, isn’t eligible.
Mercury, which has poured $3.5 million into the Proposition 17 campaign, wants to change that. It wants to be able to use discounts to lure new customers.
The proposition would “infuse competition into the market,” said Mike D’Arelli, a backer of the measure and head of the Alliance of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
Rosenfield’s opposition stems from the “zero-sum” nature of California insurance premium regulations. Basically, every discount given to a motorist must be balanced out by a “surcharge” imposed on someone else, according to the Department of Insurance.
In this case, Rosenfield said, that would mean higher premiums for motorists who weren’t previously insured. He said that would violate Proposition 103, which prohibits charging higher premiums to drivers because they hadn’t previously been covered.
Rosenfield wrote Proposition 103.
“You will get surcharged, and the surcharges will be huge,” he said in an interview.
The dueling lawsuits are all about the language in the voter pamphlets.
Proposition 17 backers complain that Rosenfield is using scare tactics. For instance, his voter pamphlet says the proposition would hurt “responsible drivers who have done nothing wrong.” The pro-17 forces say that’s “false and misleading.”
In his lawsuit, Rosenfield says it’s Proposition 17’s backers who are twisting the facts.
Contact the author at: dkasler@sacbee.com.
Tags: News Release, NewsStory
