No-Fault Auto Insurance
- Share via
The editorial hit the nail squarely on the head.
The passage of Proposition 103 signaled the limit of public tolerance for spiraling insurance costs. Ultimately, questions about the insurance industry’s share of responsibility for those costs will be resolved. The better for all of us.
It’s now time to let 103 do as it was intended and refocus our attention on ways to reduce both the number and price of claims.
We all know that California’s current system for the compensation of automobile bodily injury claims is outmoded. It is fraught with waste, expense, frustration and abuse. As the Times aptly notes, updating our system to a more efficient and rational no-fault method is more timely than ever before.
There is opportunity in other areas, too. Mitigating the terrible congestion on our streets and developing more skillful and courteous driving habits are just two. We should prioritize our legislative attention, however. A fair and balanced no-fault law would be a meaningful accomplishment in 1990.
LOUIS W. FOSTER
Chairman of the Board
20th Century Insurance Co.
Woodland Hills
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
