Escalating the Battle Against Drivers With No Insurance

Uninsured motorists are under attack in California.

Last month, Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation mandating that police, when stopping motorists, check for proof of insurance. Those who cannot show proof on the spot--or prove it later in court--face heavy fines and license suspension, and could, by court order, have their cars impounded.

Now comes Proposition 213 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot. It is state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush’s proposal to strip people of their right to sue for noneconomic damages, such as pain, suffering and disfigurement, as a result of traffic accidents in which they were an uninsured motorist, drunk driver or fleeing felon.

Although much of the campaign advertising for Proposition 213 focuses on its provisions aimed at drunk drivers and fleeing felons, at least 16 times more people would be affected by limitations on the uninsured.

“Life for the uninsured motorist is going to be pretty grim in California even without Proposition 213,” observed Evan Nossoff, a spokesman for the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

There are varying estimates of the number of uninsured California drivers, ranging from 4 million to 6 million. Most are believed to be unable to afford insurance. But many others are younger drivers and scofflaws ignoring the state’s insurance regulations.

Quackenbush, in an interview, said that felons, drunk drivers and uninsured motorists all are lawbreakers and that a tough measure like Proposition 213 is warranted. “People who are playing by the rules should not have to pay for people who are not playing by the rules,” he said.

But proposition opponents say that in loading new penalties on the uninsured, the state may be dealing unfairly with the poor.

Insurance reformer Harvey Rosenfield said, “It’s despicable that politicians like Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush are using the initiative process to enhance their own political careers at the expense of the people who are least able to defend themselves.”

He said auto insurance can cost thousands of dollars, particularly in economically depressed urban areas, and contended that it may simply be unaffordable to some people who need their cars to reach work. The proposition amounts to “class warfare,” he suggested.

Bruce M. Brusavich, head of the Consumer Attorneys Assn. of Los Angeles, said he believes that the measure may be an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under the law, and, since it would be retroactive, might be a violation of due process. A court challenge would be likely if the proposition passed, he suggested.

Some leading insurance companies also initially expressed doubts about the measure. Spokesmen for both State Farm and Allstate suggested early that it might be unduly punitive, although State Farm later decided to support it, giving $100,000 to the campaign.

A Rand Corp. study of Proposition 213 estimated that it would cut auto insurers’ compensation costs 10% for personal injuries, and ultimately result in a 5%, or $40, annual reduction in the average California driver’s auto insurance premiums. Yet there is nothing in the initiative that would require that premiums be lowered if money is saved.

Quackenbush said he already has authority to make sure that rates are not excessive, and he added, “There will always be lag time, but consumers will realize all savings from 213, certainly by the end of my term” in 1999.

The savings would stem from the measure’s prohibition on the uninsured, drunk drivers and felons suing for or otherwise claiming noneconomic damages. These customarily run about three times economic losses from such things as treatment for injuries or damage to vehicles.

Quackenbush dismissed the charges that Proposition 213 fails on constitutional grounds, remarking that driving is a privilege and that the courts have long recognized that rules can be made that restrict drivers’ rights.

The requirement that drivers insure their vehicles is the law, and it is not discriminatory or anti-poor to encourage its enforcement, the commissioner said.

As for the early doubts of the insurance firms, Quackenbush said that “the industry has resisted mandatory insurance laws, because they would much rather sell only to stable buyers” rather than poor people with no assets to protect through carrying liability insurance. He said he has been raising money from police organizations and businesses and expects to have some TV and radio ads. He has reported contributions totaling $1.5 million; foes say they have raised nothing.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Proposition 213 at a Glance

This ballot proposition seeks to limit the kinds of damages that uninsured motorists and drunk drivers can seek in court as a result of automobile accidents. It would prohibit them from recovering noneconomic damages--for pain, suffering and disfigurement, and it would prohibit fleeing felons from recovering any damages whatsoever.

Directly affected, if they were involved in accidents, would be an estimated 4 million to 6 million uninsured drivers, according to various estimates, approximately 250,000 convicted drunk drivers each year and a much smaller number of felons.

SUPPORTERS

* State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, California Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau Federation, various law enforcement organizations

****

OPPONENTS

* California Consumer Attorneys Assn., United Policyholders organization, Consumer Action, Greenlining Institute, insurance reformer Harvey Rosenfield