Proposition 101 Automobile Insurance Premiums

More than half of the $129 million spent on November, 1988, ballot measures was used to hire political consultants and purchase television and radio commercials, the state's political watchdog agency said. The Fair Political Practices Commission, reviewing $124 million in itemized expenditures of $500 or more, reported that 35% of the money--$43.4 million --purchased broadcast advertising. About 21%--$26 million--paid for political consulting services. Another 16%--$20.

More than half of the $129 million spent on November, 1988, ballot measures was used to hire political consultants and purchase television and radio commercials, the state's political watchdog agency said. The Fair Political Practices Commission, reviewing $124 million in itemized expenditures of $500 or more, reported that 35% of the money--$43.4 million --purchased broadcast advertising. About 21%--$26 million--paid for political consulting services. Another 16%--$20.

Representatives of two insurer-backed initiatives have filed lawsuits accusing Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp of preparing false and misleading ballot titles and summaries for the initiatives and writing falsehoods against them in arguments for official ballot pamphlets. The suits, filed Friday against Van de Kamp in Sacramento Superior Court by backers of Proposition 104, the insurance industry's no-fault auto initiative, and Proposition 101, an initiative supported by Coastal Insurance Co.

Leaders of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., holding what their president termed "a victory luncheon," expressed great satisfaction Friday with the results of the insurance initiative wars as reflected in Tuesday's election. Hundreds of trial lawyers and their invited guests at the Sheraton Universal cheered a series of awards to participants in the lawyer-financed Proposition 100 campaign and the successful effort to defeat the insurer-backed Propositions 101, 104 and 106 on Tuesday's ballot.

A California Field Poll on the five insurance initiatives on the November ballot shows that four of the five measures are favored by sizable margins. Proposition 100, the initiative supported by the California Trial Lawyers Assn. and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp to cut and regulate rates, has by far the most support. Also strongly supported is Proposition 106, an initiative submitted by the insurance industry that would slash lawyers' contingency fees.

Insurance companies took in $9.7 billion in auto insurance premiums from California's car owners in 1987. That much everyone involved in the state's insurance initiative wars can agree upon. But the question of how much of that $9.7 billion the insurance companies are able to keep as profit has become a major stumbling block to voters trying to weigh the pros and cons of the five measures on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Spending in the insurance initiative fight on all sides reached at least $61,182,505 by Oct. 22, two weeks before the election, according to record-breaking contribution and spending reports made available Friday. With many expenditures still to come, the amount is about 2 1/2 times what has ever been spent before for a California political contest.

A new California Field Poll indicates that two insurance ballot initiatives reflecting trial lawyer and consumer views, Propositions 100 and 103, are winning, while two insurer-sponsored initiatives, Propositions 101 and 104, are losing. The poll results encouraged the lawyer and consumer sides Wednesday but were challenged by the insurers.

The five insurance initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot are so complicated that even state officials are having trouble figuring out how to explain them to voters. An exasperated Roxani Gillespie, state insurance commissioner, acknowledges that her department's effort to produce plain-language summaries of the convoluted measures has run into difficulty. In some cases, she said, drafts of the summaries are turning out to be longer than the initiatives themselves and not much easier to understand.

State Insurance Commissioner Roxani Gillespie suggested strongly here Friday that at least half of California's top auto insurance sellers are making such low profits that her department would not require them to comply with rate rollback provisions in Propositions 100 and 103.

Insurance companies took in $9.7 billion in auto insurance premiums from California's car owners in 1987. That much everyone involved in the state's insurance initiative wars can agree upon. But the question of how much of that $9.7 billion the insurance companies are able to keep as profit has become a major stumbling block to voters trying to weigh the pros and cons of the five measures on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Spending in the insurance initiative fight on all sides reached at least $61,182,505 by Oct. 22, two weeks before the election, according to record-breaking contribution and spending reports made available Friday. With many expenditures still to come, the amount is about 2 1/2 times what has ever been spent before for a California political contest.

A new California Field Poll indicates that two insurance ballot initiatives reflecting trial lawyer and consumer views, Propositions 100 and 103, are winning, while two insurer-sponsored initiatives, Propositions 101 and 104, are losing. The poll results encouraged the lawyer and consumer sides Wednesday but were challenged by the insurers.

Based on his own polling, Harvey Englander, coordinator for Proposition 101, the November ballot initiative backed primarily by dissident insurance man Harry O. Miller, says Californians want lower auto insurance rates even if it means giving up some of their rights to recover damages. If Englander is right, Proposition 101 would seem to have excellent prospects at the ballot box. The measure promises a 50% cut in rates charged for the bodily injury component of auto insurance policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Roxani Gillespie suggested strongly here Friday that at least half of California's top auto insurance sellers are making such low profits that her department would not require them to comply with rate rollback provisions in Propositions 100 and 103.

The five insurance initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot are so complicated that even state officials are having trouble figuring out how to explain them to voters. An exasperated Roxani Gillespie, state insurance commissioner, acknowledges that her department's effort to produce plain-language summaries of the convoluted measures has run into difficulty. In some cases, she said, drafts of the summaries are turning out to be longer than the initiatives themselves and not much easier to understand.

Consumers Union on Wednesday called on Assemblyman Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) to repudiate his own auto insurance initiative, Proposition 101, charging that the November ballot measure would lower car insurance rates by shifting costs to health insurance and other forms of coverage.

Leaders of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., holding what their president termed "a victory luncheon," expressed great satisfaction Friday with the results of the insurance initiative wars as reflected in Tuesday's election. Hundreds of trial lawyers and their invited guests at the Sheraton Universal cheered a series of awards to participants in the lawyer-financed Proposition 100 campaign and the successful effort to defeat the insurer-backed Propositions 101, 104 and 106 on Tuesday's ballot.

Consumers Union on Wednesday called on Assemblyman Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) to repudiate his own auto insurance initiative, Proposition 101, charging that the November ballot measure would lower car insurance rates by shifting costs to health insurance and other forms of coverage.

A California Field Poll on the five insurance initiatives on the November ballot shows that four of the five measures are favored by sizable margins. Proposition 100, the initiative supported by the California Trial Lawyers Assn. and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp to cut and regulate rates, has by far the most support. Also strongly supported is Proposition 106, an initiative submitted by the insurance industry that would slash lawyers' contingency fees.