4 of 5 Insurance Ballot Measures Get Sizable Backing in Field Poll

A California Field Poll on the five insurance initiatives on the November ballot shows that four of the five measures are favored by sizable margins.

Proposition 100, the initiative supported by the California Trial Lawyers Assn. and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp to cut and regulate rates, has by far the most support. Also strongly supported is Proposition 106, an initiative submitted by the insurance industry that would slash lawyers’ contingency fees.

Other Measures

Favored by smaller but still substantial margins are Proposition 103, the Voter Revolt initiative backed by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, also a rate-cutting measure, and Proposition 101, the initiative backed by Assemblyman Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) and the Coastal Insurance Co. Proposition 101 would cut some rates in exchange for reducing damages for pain and suffering.

The only initiative not favored by those surveyed is Proposition 104, the insurance industry’s no-fault initiative, which has by far the best-funded campaign of all. It would cut rates and restrict lawsuits.

Field divided the 809 registered voters questioned into two subgroups, asking the first how they felt about each initiative without any sponsor identified, and the second how they felt about each one with its primary sponsors identified.

When sponsors were identified, the support was less for Propositions 100, 101, 104 and 106, and more for Proposition 103, the one backed by Nader. But in no case did the change push an initiative out of the victory or loss column.

The results of the poll, released Monday to Field’s clients, were questioned by insurance industry campaign representatives on grounds that pollster Mervin Field had given what they termed misleading summaries of several initiatives, including no-fault, to those surveyed.

“The poll results were obviously skewed when the pollster failed to mention the mandated rate reduction included in no-fault, while mentioning rate reductions included in other initiatives,” said Scott Carpenter, a spokesman for the insurers. “The wording was also erroneous in that it made it appear falsely that persons who had minor injuries would collect nothing under no-fault.”

Field agreed that some of the summaries he had used in asking the questions “may not (have been) the most clear presentation of the issues.”

The pollster noted that he had used summaries originally employed by the California secretary of state that have since, in a number of respects, been changed.

Field said he agrees that wording “is pivotal in creating the result” and he plans “a lot of modifications” of the summaries given in the next poll he takes.

Nonetheless, those in the initiative campaigns that fared well in the poll said the results were significant.

“The data from the Field Poll is consistent with what our polling has indicated in two separate (private) polls, regardless of how it’s pushed and probed,” said Steven Miller, chairman of the trial lawyers’ Proposition 100 campaign.

In another development in the initiative fight, the California Fair Political Practices Commission informed the Proposition 100 campaign that while it finds its formal name “satisfies” requirements of state law, it still thinks “the purpose of the . . . law would be better served by a more specific name.”

The name adopted, “Good Driver Initiative, Sponsored By A Consumer, Legal, Financial & Health Coalition/Yes On Proposition 100,” does not reflect the major backing of the trial lawyers, who have given nearly three-quarters of its funding.

The commission said it plans to develop a regulation that would lead to clearer identification of sponsors in the future.

VOTER PREFERENCE ON INSURANCE INITIATIVES A telephone survey by the California Field Poll on voter preference on the five different auto insurance initiatives changed--some moving up, others down--after sponsorship of each initiative was disclosed. The initiative descriptions are abbreviated from what pollsters used to question 809 potential voters in late July. Some of those descriptions have been criticized by initiative backers.

Sponsorship Not Disclosed Prop. 100 Would require auto rates for good Yes 85% drivers to be reduced 20%; No 6 establishes state regulation Undecided 9 for future increases. (Sponsors: California Trial Lawyers; state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.) Prop. 101 Would reduce bodily injury Yes 58% portion of insurance rates by No 26 50% and place limits on injury Undecided 16 claims for pain and suffering and for attorney fees. (Sponsors: Assemblyman Richard Polanco, insurance executive Harry Miller.) Prop. 103 Would lower auto rates by 20% Yes 54% for one year and require that No 28 future rate increases be approved Undecided 18 by an elected insurance commiss- ioner. (Sponsors: consumer groups, Ralph Nader.) Prop. 104 Would establish no-fault insurance Yes 33% and allow accident victims to No 46 recover damages only when Undecided 21 they exceed certain minimum amounts. (Sponsored by Calif- ornia insurance companies.) Prop. 106 Would place limits on attorney Yes 80% fees in auto injury cases. No 10 (Sponsored by California Undecided 10 insurance companies.)

After Disclosure Prop. 100 Would require auto rates for good 78% drivers to be reduced 20%; 13 establishes state regulation 9 for future increases. (Sponsors: California Trial Lawyers; state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.) Prop. 101 Would reduce bodily injury 50% portion of insurance rates by 29 50% and place limits on injury 21 claims for pain and suffering and for attorney fees. (Sponsors: Assemblyman Richard Polanco, insurance executive Harry Miller.) Prop. 103 Would lower auto rates by 20% 70% for one year and require that 17 future rate increases be approved 13 by an elected insurance commiss- ioner. (Sponsors: consumer groups, Ralph Nader.) Prop. 104 Would establish no-fault insurance 29% and allow accident victims to 48 recover damages only when 23 they exceed certain minimum amounts. (Sponsored by Calif- ornia insurance companies.) Prop. 106 Would place limits on attorney 68% fees in auto injury cases. 20 (Sponsored by California 12 insurance companies.)

Source: California Field Poll