Trial Lawyers Group Fights Compromise on No-Fault Measure

The president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. on Tuesday vowed a no-compromise fight against a no-fault auto insurance proposal backed by Gov. Pete Wilson, even as some Democratic legislative leaders who have supported the lawyers said they might be inclined to compromise.

“We are going to speak out and tell the people this is first and foremost funded by the insurance industry, acting in their own financial interest,” said Ian Herzog, the trial lawyer group’s president. “Anybody who believes, as the governor said, that they are doing it to improve their image, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell them.”

Herzog said he was concerned over reports that Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi might be prepared to negotiate a compromise. He said he wanted to remind the governor and everyone else that no-fault auto insurance was overwhelmingly defeated by California voters in 1988 and Arizona voters last year.

“Why should victims’ rights be given up when the insurers are making tens of millions of dollars, when they have spent hundreds of millions to frustrate Proposition 103?” he asked.

“Who gave the CTLA the God-given right to negotiate away the rights of the people? We don’t have that right.”

At least three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the no-fault bill authored by Sens. Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton) and Frank Hill (R-Whittier) is scheduled for its first hearing May 21, have stated publicly or privately that they foresee a compromise on the bill. Garamendi said Monday he expects “an epic compromise.”

As it was introduced, the Johnston bill would replace the state-required minimum liability insurance with a $220 basic no-fault policy for good drivers. People wanting more coverage could buy it and the $220 basic price would be guaranteed only for one year.

Under a no-fault system, drivers are reimbursed by their insurance company regardless who is at fault in an accident.

An aide to Johnston, Jeffrey L. Shelton, said Tuesday that the no-fault backers might be willing to put some auto safety and anti-fraud provisions into Johnston’s bill. But if by a compromise Garamendi and the others “(mean) we’re going to draft something less than no-fault, then our answer will be no,” Shelton said.

Brown reacted more vehemently Tuesday than he had Monday to Wilson’s vow that he would veto a Brown auto insurance reform bill. The Brown bill would provide a low-cost liability policy for low-income Californians. No rate has been disclosed, but it would be subsidized by other policyholders.

The Speaker said turnabout would be fair play if the governor arbitrarily vetoed his bill without fairly reviewing its contents.

“There are all kinds of ways for legislators to take the same untenable, unreasonable position that a governor would take,” the Speaker said. “I would hope he understands that clearly.

“He doesn’t have to sign (my bill),” Brown said. “But he certainly cannot take the position, ‘I don’t know what’s in it, but I hate the author so much I’m just going to veto the bill.’ ”

The governor’s deputy press secretary, James Lee, said: “The governor’s position is pretty clear: He views the Johnston-Hill bill as the best alternative. It’s unfortunate the Speaker would come back with that retort, but our views are known.”