California Proposition 100, Motor Vehicle Insurance Discounts Initiative (1988)
| California Proposition 100 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 1988 | |
| Topic Insurance | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 100 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 1988. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported implementing motor vehicle insurance discounts for good drivers, defined as an individual who has had a driver's license for at least three years with no more than one traffic point violation; affirming the "at fault" system; and prohibiting the government from setting insurance attorneys' fees. |
A "no" vote opposed this initiative enacting changes to motor vehicle insurance. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 100 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,849,572 | 40.90% | ||
|
|
5,562,483 | 59.10% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 100 was as follows:
| “ | Insurance Rates, Regulation. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Provides minimum 20 percent reduction in certain rates for good drivers from January 1, 1988, levels. Requires companies insure any good driver in counties where company sells automobile insurance. Requires ongoing minimum 20 percent good-driver differential. Funds automobile insurance fraud investigations, prosecutions. Provides consumers comparative automobile insurance prices. Applies laws prohibiting discrimination, price-fixing, and unfair practices to insurance companies. Requires hearing, Insurance Commissioner approval for automobile, other property/casualty, health insurance rate changes. Establishes Insurance Consumer Advocate. Increases enforcement, penalties for fraudulent health insurance sales to seniors. Cancels conflicting provisions of Propositions 101, 104, and 106 including attorney contingent fee limits and prohibits future laws setting attorney fees unless approved by voters or Legislature. Authorizes insurance activities by banks. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Would increase state administrative costs by $8 million for Department of Insurance and $2 million for Department of Justice in 1988-89, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. Would increase costs for Department of Motor Vehicles by $100,000. Would reduce state revenues from the gross premiums tax by about $20 million in first year if no other changes are made in insurance rates. Would increase revenues for Department of Insurance by over $500,000 annually from fees paid by insurance companies for fraud investigations. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
Costs Departments of Insurance and Justice. This measure appropriates $10 million from the Insurance Fund to pay for the administrative costs of its provisions in 1988-89. Of the amount appropriated, $8 million is for the Department of Insurance and $2 million is for the Department of Justice. The Insurance Fund is supported by fees and assessments on the insurance industry. Given the current balance in this fund, fees and assessments would have to be increased to cover these additional administrative costs. In the years following, the ongoing costs could be somewhat lower or higher, depending on workload. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Department of Motor Vehicles would incur annual costs of about $100,000 to include notices regarding the availability of information on automobile insurance prices in its annual renewal mailings. Revenues Insurance companies pay a tax based on the amount of gross premiums they receive each year from insurance sold in California. These tax revenues are deposited in the State General Fund. This measure requires insurance companies to grant a good driver discount. It also requires the Department of Insurance to review certain proposed insurance rate changes. Information from the DMV indicates that over half of the drivers in California could quality for the good driver discount. Such discounts, by themselves, would reduce state insurance tax revenues by about $20 million in the first year they are granted. This estimate assumes that no offsetting adjustments would be made in other insurance rates to compensate for this discount. Whether such adjustments would occur is unknown. The ongoing revenue impact of this measure also is unknown. It would depend upon what happens to insurance rates in the future. Department of Insurance. The Department of Insurance would receive unknown revenues, possibly over $500,000 annually, from fees paid by insurance companies on automobile policies. These revenues would be used to fund increased insurance fraud investigations.[2] |
” |
Support
Proposition 100 was supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Congress of California Seniors, Common Cause, the League of California Cities and John van Kamp, who was at the time the Attorney General of California.[1]
Opposition
Proposition 100 was opposed by the California Farm Federation and a former chair of the California Democratic Party.[1]
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1988, at least 372,178 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 3, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
