Quackenbush

Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies v. Quackenbush

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 73·52 Cal. App. 4th 599·60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 732·97 Daily Journal DAR 1169·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 828
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1997A074767California3,004 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Defendant and appellant Charles Quackenbush, as Insurance Commissioner of the State of California (the Commissioner), appeals an order directing him to set aside his prehearing decision concerning admission of evidence in the Proposition 103 (Ins. Code, § 1861.01 et seq.) rate reduction hearing of plaintiff and respondent Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies (Fireman’s Fund). We affirm.

Background

On November 8, 1988, the voters approved an initiative familiarly known as Proposition 103. Proposition 103 enacts a statutory scheme requiring insurers to reduce the rates of automobile and property-casualty insurance policies issued or renewed on or after November 8,1988, to levels at least 20 percent less than the charges for the same coverage which were in effect on November 8, 1987. (Ins. Code, § 1861.01, subd. (a).) It requires the Commissioner to review and approve rate increases. (Ins. Code, § 1861.01, subd. (c).) It allows insurers to seek relief from rates they consider confiscatory (Ins. Code, § 1861.05, subds. (a) & (b)) and establishes a hearing scheme to determine whether any relief is warranted. (Ins. Code, § 1861.08). Hearings, commonly called rollback hearings,…

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.