Lockyer Enters Fight Over Prop. 30

Disputing a key allegation in a multimillion-dollar insurance industry ad campaign, state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said in an opinion Thursday that the March ballot measure targeted by the TV spots does not allow drunk drivers to sue insurers.

The opinion, written in response to a question from Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), described the proposal, listed as Proposition 30 on the March 7 ballot, as “clear and unambiguous” on the subject of drunk drivers.

“[The proposition] does not authorize or permit drunk drivers to file lawsuits against insurance companies,” the opinion said.

Proposition 30 would allow victims of auto accidents to sue other drivers’ insurance companies when they believe their claims have not been handled fairly. But it excludes drunk drivers by barring anyone convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol from filing such a lawsuit.

The battle over Proposition 30 is one of the highest profile fights in the March campaign. The initiative was hatched by the insurance industry to undermine a law passed last year by the Legislature and signed by the governor, which allows injured accident victims to sue the at-fault party’s insurance company when their claims have not been handled fairly.

Proposition 30 says approximately the same thing as the new law. Immediately after placing it on the ballot, the insurance industry began a campaign to defeat its own measure because if the proposal is voted down it will have the effect of nullifying the new law. When the measure qualified for the ballot, the law was put on hold.

The question posed by Burton, a supporter of the proposition, targets a major thrust of a television advertising blitz by the nation’s big insurance companies, which have contributed more than $44 million to the campaign to defeat it.

The television spots suggest that Proposition 30 would pave the way for drunk drivers injured in automobile accidents to seek damages from insurance companies. “Drunk . . . drivers can file suits hurting law abiding citizens,” one commercial says.

The nonprofit organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has cited the drunk driving issue as one of its main reasons for joining the campaign to defeat the measure.

“Now this opinion proves that Proposition 30 is not going to allow drunk drivers to sue,” said Kelly Hayes-Raitt, a representative for the Yes on Proposition 30 campaign. “I hope by weighing on this matter the attorney general will put this claim to bed once and for all.”

But leaders of the opposition campaign said Lockyer had not addressed what they considered to be loopholes that would permit some drunk drivers to sue under certain circumstances.

John Sullivan, co-chairman of the campaign to defeat the measure, said the proposition does specifically bar lawsuits by injured motorists who were convicted of drunk driving as a result of the accident.

But what if the drunk driver wasn’t injured, he asked. He would then be free to sue for property damage if, for example, Sullivan said, his car was totaled in the accident.

Even more common, he said, first time drunk drivers are often allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like reckless driving. In those cases, he said, they could still sue.

Richard Martland, a former chief assistant attorney general and a lawyer for the opposition campaign, said the heirs of drunk drivers killed in an accident would also have the right to sue because the driver would have died before he could have been convicted.

“These kinds of exceptions aren’t going to show up by the hundreds and thousands,” Sullivan acknowledged, “but in a state with as many drivers and as many vehicles as California has, they are going to show up.”

Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier), who sponsored the law passed last year, said the commercials by the opponents have made no such distinctions, but give the impression that all drunk drivers involved in accidents would be permitted to sue insurance companies.

“I still do not understand how these people can legitimately say this opens the door for drunk drivers to sue. There’s no ambiguity; it [the proposition] just states very bluntly that they can’t,” she said.