Donabedian

Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance

Bad Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 45·116 Cal. App. 4th 968
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2004B159982California7,870 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

Proposition 103, approved by the voters on November 8, 1988, requires automobile insurance companies to determine rates, premiums, and insurability based on certain rating factors.

Plaintiff, whose automobile was insured with Mercury Insurance Company (Mercury), filed this action under California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200-17210), alleging that Mercury had used applicants’ absence of prior insurance, in and of itself, in determining premiums, a discount for good driving, and insurability, all in violation of Proposition 103.

Mercury demurred to the complaint on the ground that the Insurance Commissioner had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.

The question on appeal is whether Proposition 103 permits a person to maintain a civil action under the UCL where the complaint alleges that an insurer has used an applicant’s absence of prior insurance, in and of itself, in determining premiums, a discount for good driving, or insurability. We answer that question in the affirmative because the plain language of Proposition 103 and its legislative…

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.