No-Fault Insurance
Clever opponents of no-fault auto insurance (letters, May 10) argue that it lost to Proposition 103 in 1988 and is not effective in other states. True, no-fault legislation has failed in some other states where the legal lobby intentionally weakened the bill when it could not be defeated. The California bill, however, is modeled on the successes of Michigan and New York.
Voters angry with the failure of the Legislature to pass meaningful auto insurance reform voted for Proposition 103 because it promised relief from high premiums. It has become apparent since then that it was authored by trial lawyer interests. Since it did nothing to reduce the underlying costs of insurance, including high legal fees, premium costs continue to climb. Only no-fault is capable of controlling underlying litigation and fraud costs.
The only opponents of no-fault auto insurance legislation endorsed by Gov. Pete Wilson are the trial lawyers and their affiliate organizations, while some 20 consumer and minority organizations have endorsed it.
PETER GORMAN
Assistant Vice President
Alliance of American Insurers
San Francisco
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
