1988 California Proposition 103

Last updated

Proposition 103
Insurance Rate Reductions and Regulation Initiative
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes4,844,31251.13%
Light brown x.svgNo4,630,75248.87%

California voters passed Proposition 103 on November 8, 1988. It in effect made insurance companies require "prior approval" from the California Department of Insurance before implementing property and casualty insurance rates. It passed with 51% of the vote. [1]

Contents

The measure expanded the Department's responsibility for enforcement to include: property insurance, automobile insurance, life insurance and other types of casualty coverage. Proposition 103 made the California Insurance Commissioner an elected position (previously being a governor-appointed position). [2]

The ballot measure required insurers "roll back" their rates 20 percent. Proposition 103 devised a process enabling consumer participation in the setting of insurance rates, and allowed consumer "intervenors" witness fees and expenses in some cases. [3]

Insurance regulation

Insurance types regulated by Proposition 103 are: Personal automobile, dwelling fire, earthquake, homeowners, inland marine, and umbrella; Commercial aircraft, automobile, boiler and machinery, burglary and theft, business owners, earthquake, farm owners, some fidelity, fire, glass, inland marine, medical malpractice, miscellaneous, multi-peril, other liability, professional liability, special multi-peril, umbrella, and coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. [4]

According to the California Insurance Commissioner, Proposition 103 "has saved consumers billions" since being implemented, specifically a $4.29 billion per year dividend. [5] It also claims "Californians spent 0.3% less on auto insurance in 2010 than they spent in 1989, while the nation spent 43.3% more". The Commissioner quotes a 2013 report of the Consumer Federation that more than $100 billion had been saved by consumers in the 25 years after passage. [6] [7]

Intervenors

Investigatory and regulatory hearings are open to intervenors. Members of the public or organizations can observe or may attend the hearing and request to be heard, submit written comments or present live testimony. Attorney fees can be reimbursed when written comments are submitted that "make a substantial contribution within the time frame in the notice". [8]

Election

With $207 million spent, the most expensive election campaign in U.S. modern history was the 1988 California insurance initiatives election battle. Only Prop. 103 won voter approval. The $207 million spent, in 2020 dollars adjusted for inflation, which was $95 million in 1988, was reported by the Los Angeles Times. [9]

Opponents of Prop. 103 spent over $200 million trying to defeat it or trying to pass competing initiatives. Prop. 103 raised $6.4 million in small donations of about $30 from a statewide door-to-door canvass. These small donations from the canvass paid for the modest offices and canvasser salaries, which going into the election reached one million households. TV ads for Prop. 103 were run at no cost by TV stations only due to the fairness doctrine in place at the time, with some equal-time ads. These ads were in response to the tens of millions of dollars being spent by the insurance industry, which also used large direct-mail campaigns, coordinated by consultant Clint Reilly, who acknowledged the efforts against Prop. 103 by insurance companies lacked a lot of public support. With $200 million spent among the other initiatives, both pro and con, however, it came down to the wire, with Prop. 103 winning by only 1%, with a 51% yes vote. The campaign, and its results, received extensive national attention. Court challenges were turned down, and the California Supreme Court upheld every provision of 103.

"Three other insurance measures--Proposition 104, the industry's no-fault proposal, Proposition 100, backed by the state's trial lawyers, and Proposition 101, ... sponsored by dissident insurer Harry Miller,--all were overwhelmingly defeated," reported Kenneth Reich, the L.A. Times staff writer who covered the insurance industry and this election. Reich wrote "But Proposition 103 campaign chairman Harvey Rosenfield suggested that if the insurance industry was in trouble with the public, it had only itself to blame." [10]

Related Research Articles

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) of 1975 was a statute enacted by the California Legislature in September 1975 (and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September), which was intended to lower medical malpractice liability insurance premiums for healthcare providers in that state by decreasing their potential tort liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Insurance</span>

The California Department of Insurance (CDI), established in 1868, is the agency charged with overseeing insurance regulations, enforcing statutes mandating consumer protections, educating consumers, and fostering the stability of insurance markets in California. The CDI has authority over how the insurance industry conducts business within California, and licenses and regulates the rates and practices of insurance companies, agents, and brokers in the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 3</span>

Proposition 3, the Children's Hospital Bond Act of 2008, is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 5</span>

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 7</span>

California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%. It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 10</span>

California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.

Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit, progressive organization which advocates for taxpayer and consumer interests, with a focus on insurance, health care, political reform, privacy and energy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 16</span>

Proposition 16 in the California state elections, June 2010, was an initiative that would have amended the state constitution to require two-thirds supermajority voter approval before local governments could use public funds or issue bonds to establish or expand public electricity service or community choice aggregation. The proposition was rejected by an approximate 5 point margin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 23</span> Referendum on environmental regulations

Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harvey Rosenfield</span> American lawyer

Harvey Rosenfield is an American lawyer, author and consumer advocate. In 1985, he founded Consumer Watchdog, a nationally recognized, nonpartisan nonprofit public interest group. He serves as the group's counsel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jamie Court</span> American consumer advocate

Jamie Court is an American author, political activist, lobbyist, and consumer advocate. He serves as president of Consumer Watchdog, a nationally recognized, leftist, nonprofit public interest group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">November 2012 California elections</span>

The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 34</span>

Proposition 34 was a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. It sought to repeal Proposition 17, originally passed by voters in 1972, thus abolishing the death penalty in California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 30</span> Referendum on taxes

Proposition 30, officially titled Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, is a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. The initiative is a measure to increase taxes to prevent US$6 billion cuts to the education budget for California state schools. The measure was approved by California voters by a margin of 55 to 45 percent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> Referendum on recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> Initiative to provide education funding

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 21</span> Ballot measure on rent control

Proposition 21, an initiative statute for local rent control officially called the Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property, was a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 and was rejected. If approved, it would allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties that have been occupied for over 15 years. It would also allow landlords who own no more than two homes to exempt themselves from such policies. This would essentially repeal some of the provisions in the 1995 Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Proposition 21 was rejected by 60% of California voters, just like Proposition 10 was before it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

Proposition 45, also known as Prop 45 and the Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act, was a California ballot proposition that required any health insurance rate change to be approved by the state's Insurance Commissioner before it goes into effect. It failed in the November 2014 California elections. Insurance companies would be required to submit information to justify their rate change. The proposition also would have put in place procedures for public notice, disclosure, hearing, and subsequent judicial review for the process of the rate change being approved. The proposition was similar to 1988 California Proposition 103, in that it imposed the same things on health care insurers that the 1988 proposition imposed on homeowners insurance and automobile insurance. Sponsors of the proposition had originally tried to get the proposition on the November 2012 California election ballot and turned in over 800,000 signatures on May 18, 2012. On June 28, 2012, it was determined that there would not be enough time to confirm the validity of the signatures in time for the November election. It was announced on August 23, 2012 that the measure would be on the November 2014 ballot. The proposition was supported by Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, CREDO Action and Dennis Quaid. Opponents of the measure include the California Republican Party, California Hospital Association, NAACP California, California Chamber of Commerce and California Medical Association.

References

  1. Ralph Nader (2004). In Pursuit of Justice: Collected Writings 2000-2003. Seven Stories Press. pp. 240–. ISBN   978-1-58322-629-2.
  2. Fredrick C. Harris; Robert C. Lieberman (30 June 2013). Beyond Discrimination: Racial Inequality in a Post-Racist Era. Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 280–. ISBN   978-1-61044-817-8.
  3. J. David Cummins (23 June 2004). Deregulating Property-Liability Insurance: Restoring Competition and Increasing Market Efficiency. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 196–. ISBN   978-0-8157-9841-5.
  4. Dergler, Jon (July 2, 2018). "Insurers Question California Commissioner's Authority to Make Comp Writers Report Federal Tax Savings". Insurance Journal. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  5. Kamisher, Eliyahu; Reyes, Max; Carson, Biz (June 2, 2023). "It's not just State Farm. Allstate no longer sells new home insurance policies in California". Los Angeles Times. Bloomberg. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
  6. "Information Sheet: Proposition 103 Intervenor Process". insurance.ca.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  7. Daniels, Jeff (December 7, 2017). "Why California's big fire losses this year won't mean massive insurance rate hikes in 2018". CNBC. Retrieved September 4, 2018.
  8. Impact Analysis of Weighting Auto Rating Factors to Comply with Proposition 103. Office of Policy Research, California Department of Insurance. 1994.
  9. See "$23 a Vote, Insurers Spent $55.87 on Prop. 104," by Leo C. Wolinsky, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 31, 1989, p. 3 and p. 23.
  10. "Voters Splitting Evenly on Nader's Prop. 103". Los Angeles Times. November 9, 1988. Retrieved January 28, 2020.