Implementation of State’s Auto Insurance Law Varies

Many Traffic Court judges throughout California are refusing to implement the heavy first-time fines of $1,375 to $2,750 called for under the state’s new mandatory auto insurance law, officials of the state Judicial Council report.

Judges are slashing the fines to $100 or are suspending them to give drivers a chance to buy the required insurance and then canceling the penalty when they do, the officials said.

In some districts, however, judges are implementing the fines, leading to major disparities in the application of the law, which went into effect Jan. 1, they said.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George of the state Supreme Court, who chairs the Judicial Council, said Saturday that he has been informed there is a problem and that the Judicial Council may soon recommend changes in the law.

George confirmed that “disparate implementation of the law” was discussed at an April 4 meeting in Sacramento by judges and court commissioners belonging to the Judicial Council’s Traffic Advisory Committee.

He said he expects the committee to report to the full Judicial Council on the matter within a couple of weeks.

“The council will itself make a recommendation or determination,” George said. “These things just don’t sit in limbo. We have a special Sacramento office, the Office of Governmental Affairs, that can propose legislation.”

The chief justice called the present situation “a classic type of thing, inconsistent application of the law, the type where the council will get involved.”

The chairman of the Traffic Advisory Committee, Harbor Municipal Judge Glenn Mahler of Newport Beach, said Saturday that the committee was told of “reports statewide that the law is not being interpreted as apparently the Legislature intended it to be.”

“There’s obviously a problem,” he said, noting that the number of uninsured motorists in the state is officially estimated at more than 4 million.

“Whether this law is the correct solution to the problem, I don’t know,” he said.

His committee reached no consensus on what should be done to end inconsistent enforcement of the fines, Mahler said, and the report he makes to the full Judicial Council will probably not recommend any specific action.

The law was written by then-Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame), whose husband was killed in a traffic accident by an uninsured motorist, George said.

It is the toughest mandatory insurance law in the state’s history, requiring that proof of insurance be established at each annual registration of motor vehicles; that registration be withheld if proof is not submitted; and that police stopping motorists for other violations cite them if they cannot show proof of insurance.

Most of the cases coming to the courts involve these traffic stops. In addition to fining offenders, judges can impound vehicles.

But several members of the Traffic Advisory Committee interviewed in recent days said that many judges believe the penalties are too severe.

They noted that the fines often exceed the cost of the insurance, which many people cannot easily afford. Insurance usually costs hundreds of dollars a year and can run well over $1,000 for young drivers and those living in urban centers.

A companion bill to the Speier law that would have provided a low-cost, bare-bones policy on a no-fault basis failed last year, and has been reintroduced.

But for the time being, the insurance remains hard to afford for many, and insurance companies have been adding surcharges to those who have not been insured recently. In this context, one Traffic Advisory Committee member, Oakland Court Commissioner David Krashna, said that some judges consider the heavy fines an injustice and refuse to assess them.

“We get the sense that it’s happening all over the place,” Krashna said.

Frederick Ohlrich, court administrator of the Los Angeles Municipal Court, said last week that many judges believe the fines get in the way of the main point of the mandatory insurance law.

“The intent of the law is to get people insured, and the fines make it all even more unaffordable,” he said.

Kaye Kellogg, the administrator of the Tuolumne County Municipal Court in Sonora, said she has not heard of a single judge who likes the way the law is written, but that it is being enforced in her county.

Kellogg said of the legislators: “They put this law on the books. Now they should adopt some kind of reform, to help Californians better purchase auto insurance.”

On Saturday, state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush indicated that he would have no problem with lowering the fines.

“My top priority is to make uninsured motorists insured, and I leave it to the Legislature and the judges to decide the final fines,” he said.

Much of the insurance industry opposed the Speier bill, and its lobbyists in Sacramento continue to see many problems with it. Lynnea Olson, lobbyist for the Assn. of California Insurance Companies, said she is not surprised that many judges are refusing to levy the fines.

“This is another sign that the law is unworkable,” Olson said. “We are concerned that the fines are too high for people who can’t afford insurance, and that the law in fact can be an incentive for all sorts of fraud--false insurance ID cards down to stealing the registration stickers off license plates if the DMV won’t re-register a car.”

Dan Dunmoyer of the Personal Insurance Federation, another leading industry lobbyist in Sacramento, said he has been told that a counterfeit insurance card can be purchased in some places for $50.