Low

Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation, Inc. v. Low

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 75·85 Cal. App. 4th 1179
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 2001A084024, A085376, A085713California25,368 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hanlon, J.

The ballot pamphlet arguments for Proposition 103 passed by the voters in 1988 promised among other things that the initiative would “force[] insurance companies to base your [automobile insurance] rates on your driving record first, rather than on where you live. This means good drivers throughout the state will pay less than they do now, while bad drivers will pay more.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) rebuttal to argument against Prop. 103, p. 101.) To those ends the following provisions were added to the Insurance Code:

While these provisions may appear straightforward enough, devising regulations to implement them has been very difficult. Three Insurance Commissioners struggled with the problem before the present regulations were promulgated by former Commissioner Quackenbush in 1996. Interpretation of these regulations was contested in an administrative proceeding that concluded in 1998. Then this case was filed, alleging that the regulations as so interpreted contravene the statute. The trial court set aside one of the regulations, and interpreted the statute in a manner that may require yet another round of rulemaking. “ ‘Proposition 103 [has] proved to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.