California Proposition 200, No Fault Automobile Insurance (1996)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 200, also called the Pure No Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance/Tort Liability Initiative, was on the March 26, 1996 primary election ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.

If Proposition 200 had been approved, it would have altered California's Insurance Code to require insurers to pay benefits regardless of who was at fault in most motor vehicle accidents. Generally, regardless of fault, the insurer of the person driving any car involved in an accident would have paid for any bodily injury sustained by that driver and his or her passengers.

Proposition 200 would have significantly changed what was California's law in 1996 regarding payments for bodily injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents. It would not have had an impact on the then-current law regarding payments for property damage.

Election results

Proposition 200
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No3,754,41465.21%
Yes 2,002,767 34.79%

Text of measure

200.gif

Summary

The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

  • Requires insurer to pay benefits regardless of who is at fault in most motor vehicle accidents. Suit against another driver prohibited unless specified crime or hazard proven.
  • Requires at least $50,000 and up to $1,000,000 vehicle-owner insurance for personal injury protection; optional coverage to $5,000,000. Minimum coverage permitted with waiver of full benefits.
  • Generally covers vehicle occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists.
  • Requires insurance benefits for medical and rehabilitation costs, wage loss, replacement services, and death. Supplemental optional coverage available.
  • Generally requires benefit payment within 30 days or mandates arbitration.
  • Incorporates health care fee limits.

Estimated fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 200. That estimate was:

  • State and local government savings in health care and other expenditures potentially over $100 million annually.
  • State and local government loss in motor vehicle registration and insurance tax revenues in the tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million annually.
  • State costs to implement the measure of about $15 million (one-time), with administrative costs of about $10 million annually thereafter.
  • The measure's fiscal effect would vary by governmental entity. The net fiscal impact on the public sector as a whole is unknown.

Campaign donations

Supporters and opponents of Proposition 200 also, for the most part, supported or opposed Prop 201 and Prop 202. As a result, several campaign committees in 1996 raised and spent money for campaigns relating to all three ballot measures and, in the case of one or two campaign committees, several additional ballot propositions.

Single committees

According to the campaign finance reporting system sponsored by the California Secretary of State, no money was spent to support Proposition 200 by a single campaign committee and about $787,000 was spent to oppose it by a single campaign committee.[1]

Multiple supporters

  • The "Alliance to Revitalize California" spent $15.7 million cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[2]
  • A group called "Voter Revolt to Cut Insurance Rates" spent $247,561 cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[3]

Multiple opponents

  • A group called "Citizens Against Phony Initiatives" spent $113,045 cumulatively in a campaign to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[6]
  • A group called "Citizens for Retirement Protection and Security" spent $12.3 million cumulatively in a campaign to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202 and to support Prop 211.[7]

See also

External links

References