California Proposition 33 Will Change Auto Insurance Rates
By Bob Morris | 10/04/2012 | Ballot Initiatives, Headline | 16 Comments
Credit: daveynin / Flicker
California Proposition 33 will change auto insurance rates by allowing insurance companies to set rates based on a driver’s history of continuously having insurance with any insurance company rather than just with the current insurer. Most drivers with a history of continuous insurance would be eligible for lower rates. However, some would pay more.
George Joseph, founder of Mercury Insurance, is the primary funder of Prop 33. He has contributed $8 million of his own money. He funded a similar measure, Prop 17, in 2010 with nearly $15 million. His deep pocket funding predictably makes the No on 33 forces suspicious as to his intent. His supporters say Joseph genuinely believes Prop 33 will increase competition and thus lower rates. Still, others may wonder why such a relatively trivial matter is even on the ballot at all. However, the California Constitution allows direct citizen participation in legislative matters by using the proposition process.
Proposition 33:
- Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.
- Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some history of prior insurance coverage.
- Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.
- Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office sees little difference in total tax revenue for auto insurance if Prop 33 passes:
Introducing continuous coverage discounts could reduce the amount of premiums paid by those who are eligible for the discounts. However, this would generally be made up by additional premiums paid by those who are not eligible for such discounts. The net impact on state premium tax revenues from this measure would probably not be significant.
Therefore, the dollar amount of auto insurance policies might not change much in California if Prop 33 passes, but some could end up paying much more:
If Prop. 33 passes about 80 percent of the state’s drivers could qualify for a continuous coverage discount. That discount will be paid for by drivers that don’t qualify — and they will likely end up paying substantially higher car insurance rates.
The Yes on 33 campaign says the proposition rewards responsible drivers while No on 33 says it will increase rates in ways that are prohibited now. Voters may wish to study the arguments on both websites before making a decision.





Leave Your Comment →
16 Comments
Lucas Eaves
10.04.2012
@lucaseaves
I think that such trivia proposition should not be on the ballot. It is mixed with other proposition that have considerable importance thus diluting the interest of the voters for important proposition.
Jane Susskind
10.04.2012
@jsusskind
I don’t think it dilutes interest. Just because it may be considered “boring” or doesn’t deal with a controversial issue, doesn’t mean it’s not important. Maybe this prop won’t pull in people to vote, but I don’t think someone will NOT vote at all just because there is one less-interesting ballot proposition. They may choose not to form an opinion on this issue, but they won’t be discouraged from voting in general because of this. They just won’t take the time to form an opinion.
Chad Peace
10.04.2012
@Chad_Peace
I tend to think that, aside from issues that have to do with the way we elect our representative, propositions should not be left to those representatives.
Lucas Eaves
10.04.2012
@lucaseaves
I like the idea of more direct democracy. But having so many issues to vote on must be confusing for so many people. I consider myself quite educated on political issues but I would be lost with all these propositions. But if Californians are used to it and the voter information guide is enough to make up your mind, congratulation.
Mareike Lucht
10.04.2012
@malu
I think that the more propositions you put on a ballot the likelihood that people lose overside is higher. I think the average voter is not familiar with all those issues put on a ballot and will not make an informed decision. I am for direct democracy as well, but I also think that there are different matters of different importance and therefore they should be discussed and decided upon at different times.
Michael Higham
10.04.2012
@michaelhigham
Sounds like it will widen an auto insurance rate gap. I don’t see how a history of continuous coverage should get you a discount, but I see that there are reasonable exceptions. Judging from what the LAO stated, seems like Prop 33 is a whole lot of nothing, besides increasing rate disparity. And also, the first bullet seems like a way for auto insurance companies to find any excuse to give out higher rates. I could be wrong, though!
Emma Goda
10.04.2012
@emmagoda
I agree with you, I don’t understand how you should get a discount just because you had continuous insurance. Drivers should get discounts for driving safely etc.
Jane Susskind
10.04.2012
@jsusskind
Do insurance companies account for age/time with license? Or will people who have been driving longer, thus had insurance longer, get discounts at the expense of young drivers?
Bob Morris
10.04.2012
@Bob_Morris
I can’t help but think that an insurance company CEO who spends $23 million of his own money on insurance company propositions must think his company will benefit somehow.
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.04.2012
@cassidynb
Bob, do you know how this will affect first-time insurance buyers?
Bob Morris
10.06.2012
@Bob_Morris
They don’t have continuous coverage so aren’t eligible for discounts, I would guess
Blaz Gutierrez
10.04.2012
@blazgutierrez
So why exactly are the insurance companies funding this? Increased competition seems like a disingenuous reason for promoting the initiative considering that all CA drivers must be insured. What’s their MO?
Alex Gauthier
10.05.2012
@alexg
An odd way to split voters. Those who have had continuous insurance coverage against those who haven’t.
Richard
10.07.2012
after all the games and using the government to take our money as fast as they can
were supposed to believe one of the insurance companies “suddenly” decides to be
fair? i call BS.
4insurenet
10.13.2012
@4insurenet
People who vote against this proposition are saying that you should automatically have to pay more if you switch insurers.
I’m with AAA and have been for 30 years. Because of that long relationship, I get a discount from AAA. Whenever I shop insurance costs, that discount evaporates even though I have an excellent driving record.
So I don’t switch because state law imposes a transaction cost if I switch.
All this proposition does is remove the cost of switching that’s mandated by state law.
The status quo locks you into your insurance company. Is that what people really want?
James from http://www.4autoinsurancequote.com
John Messina
10.27.2012
Prop 33 only eliminates the penalty for changing insurance providers. Arguments against this proposition mainly argue that it will create a surcharge penalty for first time and non-continuous customers. What they ignore is the fact that there is already a surcharge penalty for new and non-continuous users – so that is not going to change. It only eliminates it being imposed when you transfer continuous coverage from one provider to another, which is now used to discourage customers from switching insurance companies.
There is a similar and more severe surcharge penalty on home insurance policies – sometimes amounting to as much as 100 % increase penalty for new and non-continuous customers and even worse, some insurance companies won’t even sell a policy to new or non-continuous users at all.