Proposition 30 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 31 | Secretary of State Home
Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedies.
Referendum.
Argument Against Proposition 30
 

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

DON'T BE FOOLED

Proposition 30 (and its companion, Proposition 31), sponsored by personal injury lawyers, is a trick to allow two lawsuits for the same accident. That means billions in higher lawyer fees, but consumers pay. No wonder the personal injury lawyers' association president told the LA Times that Proposition 30 (with Prop. 31) was, "our biggest victory in 40 or 50 years."

This "victory" for personal injury lawyers will dramatically increase insurance premiums for all Californians. Respected former Legislative Analyst William Hamm estimates Proposition 30 could cost consumers up to 15% more for auto insurance , over $1 billion more each year. Small businesses also pay millions more.

Under Proposition 30, if your insurer refuses to pay an unreasonable settlement demand made against you, it risks a separate multi-million dollar lawsuit.

PROPOSITION 30 MEANS:
THE LESSONS OF RECENT HISTORY ARE CLEAR!

During the 1980s, the California Supreme Court allowed second lawsuits if an inflated settlement demand was not met. According to California Judicial Council records, auto injury lawsuits filed every year almost doubled. Settlements from insurers zoomed. Since personal injury lawyers often receive 40%, they made millions. As a result, consumer's insurance rates skyrocketed. Finally, the Supreme Court outlawed these second lawsuits. Since then, the number of auto injury lawsuits is back to normal. According to the Department of Insurance, insurance rates are down over 20%.

PROP. 30 IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

If someone thinks a settlement offer is too low, they can already take the dispute to court. They can also file a complaint with the state Department of Insurance.

Proposition 30 invites more frivolous lawsuits, more fraudulent claims and higher insurance rates.

HERE'S WHAT SOME OF THE MANY RESPECTED GROUPS OPPOSING PROP. 30 SAY:

"Proposition 30 would give drunk drivers new rights to sue and recover financial rewards against an insurance company, even if they are drunk at the time of the collision. Drunk drivers should be forced to pay, not BE PAID by their willful disregard for the law. MADD is vigorously opposed to Prop. 30."
--Mothers Against Drunk Driving

"Proposition 30 will cost taxpayers millions because hard-earned tax dollars will be diverted as government agencies are forced to pay for frivolous lawsuits and high insurance costs."
--California Taxpayers' Association

"Insurance fraud will thrive under Prop. 30."
--California Organization of Police and Sheriffs

"If Prop. 30 takes effect, money needed for classroom instruction will instead have to pay for higher school insurance costs."
--Marian Bergeson, Member, State Board of Education

JOIN TAXPAYERS, SENIORS, CONSUMERS, INSURERS, SMALL BUSINESS GROUPS, EDUCATORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 30.

REBECCA M. BEARDEN
Chairperson, California Public Policy Committee, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

LARRY McCARTHY
President, California Taxpayers Association

SHIRLEY KNIGHT
Deputy State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
Proposition 30 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 31 | Secretary of State Home