No-Fault Signatures in Jeopardy

The president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. has asked that the more than 50,000 signatures gathered so far to qualify an auto insurance initiative the lawyers oppose be invalidated because of a one-word error by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp’s office in preparing the measure’s legal summary.

Van de Kamp notified the initiative’s sponsor, Assemblyman Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), in a letter Thursday that the attorney general’s office had made a mistake last December and that the 100-word summary had to be revised before further petitions are circulated.

But Van de Kamp, who along with Trial Lawyer Assn. President J. Gary Gwilliam is on the campaign steering committee of a competing insurance initiative, was silent on the question of whether the signatures already gathered are invalid.

Unclear Arguments

“While fairness suggests they should be counted,” a Van de Kamp spokesman said Friday, “their validity is a matter of law, not policy, and since there’s little established law on the issue, neither argument is clear.”

If the signatures already obtained are ruled invalid, backers of the Polanco initiative--which would cut some liability premiums by 50% in exchange for restricting lawsuits, damage recoveries and lawyer fees--will have to start all over in gathering the 372,178 signatures they need to qualify the measure for the 1988 ballot.

The summary, as issued by Van de Kamp’s office Dec. 28, read, in part, that the initiative “prohibits (lawyers’) contingent fees greater than 25% of non-economic losses.”

In fact, the correct word is “economic,” not “non-economic.”

Typing Error Blamed

Van de Kamp’s chief deputy in charge of the civil division, Richard Martland, said Friday that the error was his. He said he had inadvertently typed the word while doing a final condensation of the summary.

Martland said that while Van de Kamp had not made up his mind what legal position to take, he (Martland) feels that “it would be unfair to throw them out. . . . The equities here are on the side of the initiative proponents.”

However, the trial lawyers’ Gwilliam does not agree.

“It taints the whole petition-circulating campaign,” he said Friday. “The circulation of petitions thus far has been improper and the signatures are illegal.”

He said that because of the error, he feels people signing the petition could have gotten the idea the lawyers’ fees would be cut back four or five times more than would actually be the case, an apparent allusion to non-economic losses such as pain and suffering being greater than economic losses.

Suit Threatened

Gwilliam indicated to Van de Kamp in a letter dated last Tuesday that unless the signatures already obtained are thrown out, the trial lawyers will sue to have it done.

Harvey Englander, manager of the Polanco initiative campaign, responded: “I just find it unfortunate that the trial lawyers are so desperate in their tactics that they would attempt to disenfranchise 50,000 voters due to another attorney’s clerical error.” He charged that the trial lawyers have delivered “a very strong kick in the groin” to the Polanco initiative. But he said he is optimistic that it can be overcome.

Englander and Polanco, meanwhile, both said they are considering billing Van de Kamp’s office for the initiative campaign’s extra costs in collecting more signatures.

Polanco added that Van de Kamp’s position on the side of the trial lawyers in a competing initiative also “certainly creates suspicion” about what has happened.

Van de Kamp deputy Martland said, “I agree there is some liability for those costs. . . . It does look bad for the attorney general’s office. No one likes to screw up.”

Involvement Denied

But he went on to say that it is not true that Van de Kamp had anything directly to do with the situation.

“When it came to my office, it (the summary) was correct,” Martland said. “When it left my office it was incorrect. I’m the one solely responsible for that.”

Meanwhile, in another development regarding insurance initiatives, state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys), chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee, said he has asked Van de Kamp to certify him as the new proponent of an initiative originally prepared by the Consumers Union.

Robbins said this initiative--which would set up a state auto fund to replace the private insurance companies in issuing state-mandated minimum liability coverage, institute a no-fault system and rate regulation and cut back on some damage recoveries--may also be backed by Adam Burton, a South Los Angeles political aide who has been circulating his own initiative.

The Consumers Union, which will still support the initiative, had all but abandoned plans to push it for lack of money to mount a qualification campaign.