No-Fault Auto Insurance--Who Benefits?
No-fault auto insurance, defeated as a ballot measure in 1988, goes back before the voters on March 26.
Proposition 200 would prohibit most automobile accident lawsuits, while at the same time require a minimum insurance policy to register a car.
The proposal is one of three anti-lawyer measures on the ballot. Supporters say that attorneys and lawsuits have been driving up insurance premiums. Opponents argue that under a no-fault system a driver has less accountability for his or her actions.
Should California have no-fault automobile insurance?
Marvin Selter, vice chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.:
“I believe they should not have no-fault insurance . . . I think [insurance companies] are going to take a beating. They’re going to raise their premiums. I think as much as I dislike the litigiousness in society and the areas that attorneys take in suits, I think no fault will not solve the problem.”
Jerry Curry, former president of United Chambers of Commerce:
“The United Chambers of Commerce supports that position. We believe with no fault the effects would be that insurance rates would decrease over time as you take out the factor of attorney fees.”
Mike Johnson, executive director of the Alliance to Revitalize California, and an author of Proposition 200:
“It would provide people with the assurance that if they bought automobile insurance they would be covered regardless of how the accident happened. It means uninsured motorists will no longer be subsidized by law-abiding citizens. It will mean that lawyers will no longer take 20 cents out of every premium dollar. All told, in California we pay 2 1/2 billion dollars a year to pay lawyers to argue over automobile accidents.”
Jim Caird, president of Auto Insurance Specialists:
“My opinion is that California should not have no-fault auto insurance. First and foremost, I think that most Californians should agree we should all be responsible for our acts. In no-fault, no one is accountable for their acts. I think that’s rather absurd . . . The legal profession has a way to circumvent any type of no fault. No fault has come up in various states . . . premiums did not lower but went up as much as 40%. . . . I don’t think this no-fault initiative is timely. California in 1988 was the second most expensive state of the 50 [for auto insurance] and now we are ninth, which is very meaningful. I don’t think we have nearly the problems we had then. . . . If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it applies here.”
Bert Boeckmann, owner of Galpin Ford in Van Nuys:
“I think it’s very simple. I think the person who currently insures his vehicle should vote for no fault and the person who does not carry insurance should vote against no fault.”
On the Issue appears every Tuesday. Please send suggestions for possible topics to On the Issue, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Or fax it to (818) 772-3338. Or e-mail it to valley@latimes.com. Please include your name and daytime phone number.
