Editorial, VISALIA TIMES-DELTA
Proposition 17 on the June 8 ballot continues a tradition in California initiatives of promising one thing while doing the opposite.
Supporters of Proposition 17, including its chief backer, Mercury Insurance, claim it would offer savings on premiums for consumers. In fact, it would allow insurers to raise insurance premiums.
We recommend that voters reject this disingenuous attempt to undermine protection of consumers.
Voters passed Proposition 103 in 1988, setting a number of provisions for consumer protection in the insurance industry. Among them was that insurers couldn’t use continuity of insurance coverage as a criterion for setting insurance premiums. Proposition 103 pretty much said a driver’s safety record, time on the road and location were the criteria for setting rates.
Proposition 17 would change the provisions of Prop 103 so that insurers could offer discounts to motorists who maintained their insurance coverage for long periods of time.
It would also guarantee the discounted premiums for motorists who changed insurers as long as they maintained coverage.
But Proposition 17 would also allow insurers to raise rates on motorists whose coverage lapsed for 90 days or more.
This is nothing more than a strategem devised by insurance companies that allows them to raise premiums unfairly. There are plenty of reasons people cancel their auto insurance temporarily: The motorists sell their car, for instance, because they are moving, or go into the military or to college or have a long illness, so they take their car off the road.
When any of those people decide later to renew their insurance, the provider can cite the lapse of continuity as indicative of greater risk and raise their rates.
In many cases, this would force people to pay for insurance coverage they might not need, because if they let their coverage lapse, they’ll be gouged when they want to buy insurance again.
That is one of the reasons that organizations representing veterans and military personnel oppose Proposition 17.
The only reason for this initiative is to sweeten the deal for some insurance providers.
It’s not necessary. Proposition 103 already protects the interests of consumers.
Voters should reject Proposition 17. Like its companion, Proposition 16, this is nothing more than a scheme by a large business to feather its nest.
Tags: big corporations, consumer, contributions, deceptive, Editorial, Mercury, Prop 17, trust, voters
