Prop. 213 Wouldn’t Do the Job

Proposition 213, a statewide initiative on the November ballot, looks like an easy call. Its title is “Limitation on Recovery to Felons, Uninsured Motorists, Drunk Drivers.” A pro-213 campaign statement says that “criminals should not be allowed to profit from their crimes.” Of course, robbers should not be allowed to profit from suing a bank, for example, if they are injured by the package of tear gas and dye tossed into their loot by an alert teller. The fact is, they don’t. Such cases are exceedingly rare.

The drunk driving section of 213 would prohibit drunk drivers from suing for pain, suffering and disfigurement suffered in an accident. They still could sue to recover medical expenses and lost wages. But 213 applies only to accidents caused by sober drivers in which the victim is proven to have been drunk at the time. Again, a rare problem.

That brings us to the main reason why state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush and others are pushing 213: the problem of uninsured motorists.

Under 213, uninsured motorists would be prohibited from suing for pain and suffering in accidents caused by insured motorists. They still could file suits to recover lost wages and medical expenses.

But the pro-213 argument lumps uninsured motorists in with felons and drunk drivers, confusing the issue and suggesting that most people who drive without insurance are equally despicable. Yes, 30% of drivers in California, 37% in L.A. County and more than 60% in parts of Los Angeles are uninsured. Why? The state’s own figures, in 1995, showed that the highest proportion of uninsured motorists lived in low-income communities and had no insurance because they could not afford it. The insurance industry practice of setting premium rates primarily according to a policyholder’s address unfairly inflates costs. Proposition 213 would strip the disadvantaged of the legal rights enjoyed by others simply because they cannot afford insurance.

Furthermore, supporters of 213 claim that insurance premiums will go down if it passes, but nothing in 213 mandates that savings be passed on to consumers. The proper place to address such issues is in the Legislature, which could deal with each problem with far more precision. Vote no on 213. It does not accomplish what is needed, which is more equitable and affordable insurance.