Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

California Proposition 30, Third-Party Unfair Claim Lawsuits Referendum (March 2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 30
Flag of California.png
Election date
March 7, 2000
Topic
Civil and criminal trials
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Referendum
Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 30 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on March 7, 2000. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote was to uphold legislation that allows third-party lawsuits against insurance companies for unfair claims practices in handling liability claims.

A "no" vote was to repeal legislation that allows third-party lawsuits against insurance companies for unfair claims practices in handling liability claims.


Overview

In 1999, the California State Legislature passed two laws (SB 1237 and AB 1309) to allow third-party claimants to sue insurance companies. SB 1237 and AB 1309 were set to go into effect on January 1, 2000. However, opponents of the laws circulated petitions to collect signatures to place the measures on the statewide ballot as veto referendums. Since these measures qualified for the ballot as Proposition 30 and Proposition 31, the laws were put on hold until the March 7, 2000 election. In that election, both measures were defeated.

Proposition 30 was about SB 1237. SB 1237 gave third-party claimants the ability to sue an insurance company for unfair claim practices in certain liability cases and created a binding arbitration system for settling these liability cases.[1]

Election results

California Proposition 30

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 2,232,420 31.51%

Defeated No

4,852,228 68.49%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 30 was as follows:

Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedies. Referendum.

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

A "Yes" vote approves, a "No" vote rejects legislation that:

  • restores right to sue another person's insurer for insurer's unfair claims settlement practices;
  • allows such lawsuits only if insurer rejects a settlement demand and injured party obtains a larger judgment or award against insured party;
  • bars such lawsuits against public entities; workers' compensation insurers; and professional liability insurers under certain circumstances; or if convicted of driving under the influence;
  • authorizes requests for consensual binding arbitration of claims under $50,001 against parties covered by insurance. Insurers agreeing to arbitration cannot be sued for unfair practices.

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.


Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

  • Increase in state insurance gross premiums tax revenue, potentially several millions of dollars each year.
  • Unknown net impact on state court costs.

[2]

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For veto referendums filed in 2000, at least 419,260 valid signatures were required.Proponents of the veto referendum had 90 days from the date that the bill was signed to collect signatures.

See also


External links

Footnotes

  1. LAO's analysis of Proposition 30
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.