Quackenbush

PROPOSITION 103 ENFORCEMENT v. Quackenbush

Good Law
64 Cal. App. 4th 1473·76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1998B112528California8,947 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephen L. Young, Keker & Van Nest, Susan J. Harriman and Steven A. Hirsch for Intervener and Respondent.

OPINION

CROSKEY, Acting P.J.

Plaintiff, The Proposition 103 Enforcement Project (the Project) filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction and a complaint for declaratory relief (the complaint) against Charles Quackenbush, as the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of California (the Commissioner) and Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company, Zurich Insurance Company, Williamsburg National Insurance Company, and State Farm Group of Insurance Companies (collectively, the Insurers) for a declaration that Insurance Code section 769.2 [1] is invalid and to enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing its provisions in current and future settlements with the Insurers as to a determination of the Insurers' liability to refund to policyholders the overpayments, if any, of premiums for the 1988-1989 year. [2] Such premium overpayments would exist to the extent that the Insurers either had (1) failed to reduce premium charges for coverage in 1988-1989 to a level no higher than 80 percent of the premium charged in 1987, as required by section 1861.01, subdivision (a), or…

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.