Battle over insurance measure continues in court Friday
Posted by Marisa Lagos – SFGate.com Politics Blog
Looks like the California Attorney General’s office agrees with itself.
In advance of a court hearing Friday, where a judge will hear arguments over ballot language for Proposition 17, the AG’s office filed a brief essentially defending its decision last month to change the measure’s ballot summary.
A little background: Proposition 17, backed by Mercury Insurance Group, is on the June ballot. The measure would change the state law that governs insurance rates by allowing companies to consider a drivers’ coverage history when they sign up (currently, continuous coverage rates — i.e., discounts for maintaining insurance — only apply while you stay at the same company). And that’s where the problem lies.
Backers say the change will encourage competition by letting drivers shop around more, and that current, voter-approved laws punish good drivers who want to change insurers.
Opponents charge that it’s a veiled attempt to hike up rates for thousands of drivers, including servicemen and women, who had a lapse in their insurance for any reason. And, they argue, it will let insurers impose surcharges that are outlawed under Proposition 103, the 1988 landmark car insurance measure approved by voters. After they accused Attorney General Jerry Brown of caving to the huge insurance company — a contributor to his gubernatorial run — Brown’s office changed the ballot summary to include this sentence:
“Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of insurance coverage.”
(An aside: that story we linked to above, by colleague Carla Marinucci, set off a whole different drama over Brown’s spokesman taping phone calls with reporters, which led to an investigation and that spokesman resigning.)
Mercury objected in court, and now we have tomorrow’s court hearing.
In that brief filed by the Attorney General’s office, the state argues that the proponents don’t think the ballot summary is untrue, but should be stricken because the cost of insurance are the function of rates set by the Insurance Commissioner, and that Prop. 17 doesn’t actually contain any language about rate setting.
“The fact of the matter is that if Proposition 17 passes, insurance companies will be allowed to do two key things: (1) lower the cost of insurance to drivers who qualify for the new discount; and (2) increase the cost of insurance for drivers who do not qualify for the new discount. Thus, voters would be misled if the title and summary mentioned only the new discount but not the corresponding surcharge,” the brief reads.
Voters, the AG’s office argues, would be misled into thinking the measure is just about offering a discount without that key sentence.
The Prop. 17 campaign calls the measure “common sense” and said in a news release today that opponents are “intentionally misleading voters.”
Whew. Friday’s hearing should be fun. But first, we need a nap.
Tags: Blog
