BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE S Charles M. Calderon, Chairman B 1995-96 Regular Session 1 4 3 3 SB 1433 Senator Peace As amended on April 23, 1996 Hearing Date: June 4, 1996 Insurance Code GWW:md AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE -USING ADDITIONAL RATING FACTORS TO SET INSURANCE RATES- -NO WEIGHTING OF FACTORS- -PER SE COMPLIANCE WITH PROP. 103- -AMENDMENT OF PROP. 103- HISTORY Source: Mercury Casualty; Zenith Insurance Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Vote: Senate Insurance Committee Ayes - 5 Noes - 3 KEY ISSUES 1. SHOULD PROPOSITION 103 BE AMENDED TO ALLOW INSURERS TO USE OTHER SPECIFIED FACTORS, IN ADDITION TO THE THREE PRIMARY FACTORS LISTED IN PROP. 103 (DRIVING RECORD, MILES DRIVEN, YEARS OF DRIVING EXPERIENCE) FOR THE SETTING OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES? SB 1433 (Peace) Page b 2. SHOULD PROP. 103'S REQUIREMENT FOR PRIMARY WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE THREE LISTED FACTORS IN SETTING AUTO RATES, AND FOR THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER'S TO ASSIGN THE WEIGHT GIVEN TO OTHER AUTO RATING FACTORS USED TO SET RATES, BE REPEALED? 3. SHOULD ANY RATE WHICH IS SET BY USING THE PROPOSED RATINGS FACTORS OF THIS BILL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PROP. 103 AND NOT "EXCESSIVE, INADEQUATE, OR UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY"? 4. DOES SB 1433 "FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF PROP. 103"? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to establish in statute the factors and methodology to be used by insurers in determining automobile insurance rates. 1. Under Insurance Code Section 1861.2, enacted by Proposition 103 in 1988, rates and premiums for private passenger automobile insurance must be determined by application, in decreasing order of importance, of the following factors: a. The insured's driving safety record; b. The number of miles the insured drives annually; c. The insured's number of years driving experience; and d. Other factors which have a substantial relationship to the risk of loss that the Insurance Commissioner, by regulation, adopts. Prior to enactment of Proposition 103, insurers were relatively free to use any rating factors, and any method of rating analysis, that they chose to adopt. While the law prohibited rates that were "unfairly discriminatory," there were no standards in statute concerning what the phrase might mean, nor any way to effectively enforce the provision. Consequently, any system of categorization for which the industry could provide data to establish SB 1433 (Peace) Page c some degree of statistical correlation between a classification and losses was allowed. Upon enactment of Proposition 103, then Commissioner Gillespie had one year under that initiative to adopt regulations to implement the "rating factor" provisions (Section 1861.02). When she offered her regulations for adoption, they were deemed flawed by both insurer and consumer groups, and its implementation was promptly challenged in court by insurers who argued that the language in Section 1861.05 (prohibiting "excessive, inadequate, and unfairly discriminatory rates) required "cost-based rating." (Cost-based rating is the industry term of art used to refer to the methods historically used to establish rating factors.) The trial court agreed and enjoined Commissioner Gillespie from implementing the rating regulations she had adopted. In addition, the superior court also directed Gillespie to adopt regulations consistent with the ruling. Given the confines of the court ruling, Commissioner Gillespie adopted "emergency regulations" embracing cost-based rating, which essentially reflected the practice of the industry. In the intervening six years, Commissioners Gillespie, Garamendi, and Quackenbush have continued the use of those court-mandated emergency regulations pending adoption of permanent regulations. On May 22, Commissioner Quackenbush issued permanent regulations to implement the rating factor provisions of Proposition 103. These regulations have been filed with the Office of Administrative Law and, unless challenged, will be effective on or before June 22. These soon-to-be-adopted regulations are substantially different from the emergency regulations, and insurers have voiced opposition to their adoption. Consumer groups have generally supported adoption of the Quackenbush regulations. Generally, the proposed regulations require the use of the three mandatory factors and allow insurers to consider 15 other subordinate factors. (See Comment 1 for list of 15 factors.) SB 1433 (Peace) Page d This bill would revise Section 1861.02 of Prop. 103 and set forth a list of 23 other co-equal rating factors an insurer may use to determine premiums for private passenger automobile insurance. (See Comment 1 for listing of 23 additional factors.) 2. Under Prop. 103, the use of the three listed factors (driving record, miles driven, and years of experience, must be considered in decreasing order of importance in setting a person's auto insurance rate. In addition to these three factors, an insurer may use any other optional ratings factors adopted by regulation which has a substantial relationship to the risk of loss. Existing law requires the commissioner to establish the weight to be assigned to rating factors adopted by regulation, and provides that any factor which is used by an insurer but which has not been adopted by regulation is by definition unfair discrimination. Under the proposed regulations, "four factor weights shall be calculated, one weight for each of the three mandatory factors ... and one for all the optional factors taken together as a single factor weight." This bill would repeal provisions of Prop. 103 giving primary weight to the three listed factors and requiring the weighting of other optional factors which are adopted by regulation. It would also define the phrase "decreasing order of importance" to mean use of a sequential analysis of all of the factors which an insurer has elected to utilize. The bill does not specify what "sequential analysis" means. 3. Existing law provides that property/casualty insurance rates shall not be "excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory," or otherwise in violation of Chapter 9 of the Insurance Code. This bill would provide that any rate established pursuant to the amended rating factor provisions of this bill would not violate subdivision (a) of section 1861.05 (the requirement that rates not be excessive, inadequate SB 1433 (Peace) Page e or unfairly discriminatory). 4. Existing law provides that Proposition 103 can be amended only by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, and only to further its purposes. This bill would state that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 103 because, "without this act, rates would be in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 1861.05" (the requirement that rates not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory). COMMENT 1. Should Prop. 103 be amended to allow insurers to use other specified factors, in addition to the three factors listed in Prop. 103 (driving record, miles driven, years of driving experience), in setting automobile insurance rates? According to the sponsors of SB 1433, the Mercury Insurance Group and Zenith Insurance, SB 1433 is intended to codify the rating factors which have been used historically by the insurance industry and which were adopted as part of emergency regulations in 1989 by the Insurance Commissioner Gillespie pursuant to court order. These regulations, with modest changes, were renewed by Insurance Commissioner Garamendi during his term in office, and renewed by Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush when he first assumed office in January, 1994. On May 22, 1996, however, Commissioner Quackenbush announced the filing of permanent regulations (replacing the emergency regulations) to implement Prop. 103. In general, the regulations require the consideration of the three listed factors (driver's record, number of miles driven per year, and years of driving experience) as mandatory factors. The regulations then allow the consideration of the following optional ratings factors: (a) Type of Vehicle; (b) Vehicle performance capabilities, including alterations made subsequent to original manufacture; (c) Type of use of vehicle (pleasure only, commute, SB 1433 (Peace) Page f business, farm, commute mileage, etc.); (d) Percentage use of the vehicle by the rated driver; (e) Multi-vehicle household (f) Academic standing of the rated driver; (g) Completion of driver training or defensive driving courses by the rated driver. (h) Vehicle characteristics, including engine size, safety and protective devices, damageability, repairability and theft deterrent devices. (i) Gender of the rated driver. (j) Marital status of the rated driver. (k) Persistency. (l) Non-smoker. (m) Secondary Driver Characteristics. (n) Factors which the insurer can demonstrate bear a substantial relationship to the risk of loss. (o) Relative claims frequency. This factor can reflect factors such as where the car is garaged, zip codes, and bands. (p) Relative claims severity. This factor can also reflect where the car is garaged, zip codes, and bands. Insurers have vocally opposed the proposed regulations, stating that "it will totally disrupt and artificially change the rules (on how) drivers pay for their insurance." Proponents contend that the rating factor regulations will actually disadvantage the majority of drivers by raising their rates. They assert that good drivers will subsidize bad drivers, inexperienced drivers will subside experienced drivers, and rural geographic area will subsidize urban areas such as Beverly Hills under the proposed regulations. (Please note that the objections are also based on the regulation's retention of Prop. 103's weighted factors requirement - see Comment 2.) In lieu of Prop. 103 and the proposed regulations, SB 1433 would instead allow an insurer to use any of the following additional, optional rating factors in addition to the main three factors listed in Prop. 103. Those factors which are also included in the Commissioner's regulation are noted in bold text. SB 1433 (Peace) Page g (a) Type of vehicle. (b) Vehicle characteristics, including engine size, safety and protective devices, damageability, repairability, and theft deterrent devices. (c) Vehicle performance capabilities, including alterations made subsequent to original manufacture. (d) Type of use of vehicle, including, but not limited to, personal, business, farm, or commercial use. (e) Usage patterns of the vehicle, including daily or weekly commuting. (f) Multicar households. (g) Completion of driver training or defensive driving courses. (h) Persistency. (i) Primary or occasional usage of the vehicle. (j) Theft rates. (k) Average repair garage labor rates. (l) Average medical and hospital costs. (m) Average wage and income levels. (n) Litigation rates. (o) Population density. (p) Vehicle density. (q) Accident or claims frequency, or both, including injury and fatality rates. (r) Number of uninsured vehicles. (s) Average claims cost. (t) Age. (u) Gender. (v) Marital status. (w) Academic standing. Proponents, the auto insurance industry, argue that the bill is necessary to resolve "a contradiction in the statute" between Sections 1861.02 and 1861.05. They argue that analysis of insurer loss experience shows a "strong statistical correlation" between risk of loss and the factors listed in the bill, and that the pending regulations being promulgated by the Insurance Commissioner are not based on actual costs. Proponents contend that the two provisions are "potentially in conflict if Section 1861.02 is interpreted to require or allow rates which are not based on the actual cost of SB 1433 (Peace) Page h providing the insurance." A number of consumer groups and others, oppose SB 1433. They contend that use of the numerous proposed factors, and leaving its weighting to the industry, would revert the law back to "traditional cost-based pricing" (which had been the practice prior to Proposition 103, and which has been employed under the emergency regulations). Opponents contend that the insurance industry is using scare tactics by erroneously asserting that the Quackenbush regulations would cause rate increases for over 70% of drivers (which has been denied by a representative of the Commissioner ). Instead, opponents assert that the proposed regulations would, in general, help good drivers throughout the state, and would, in particular reduce auto insurance costs for good drivers in the Los Angeles area. Opponents also contend that SB 1433 is intended to further delay implementation of Proposition 103. They point out that the insurance industry has spent the last seven years contesting this issue in the courts, and is now resorting to the Legislature to further delay implementation. Objections are also raised to some specific factors included in the bill. Some opponents object to specific individual factors, such as wage levels and income levels. Other opponents note that the combination of factors can be a problem, as when population density as well as vehicle density are used as separate factors from accident frequency, or when average claims cost is used as a separate item from factors which already account for costs of all of the various loss components. Opponents also question whether some of the proposed optional factors have a substantial relationship to the risk of loss, as the initiative requires. Finally, opponents rejection the contention that the bill is needed to resolve a conflict within the statutes. (See Comment 4 for further discussion.) 2. Should Prop. 103's requirement for primary weight to be SB 1433 (Peace) Page i given to the three listed factors in setting auto rates, and for the insurance commissioner's to assign the weight given to other auto rating factors used to set rates, be repealed? Under existing law, the three listed factors and then any other optional ratings factors adopted by regulation are considered in decreasing order of importance in setting a person's auto insurance rate. Under Prop. 103, the Commissioner is authorized to establish the weight to be assigned to any rating factors which are adopted by regulation. Under the proposed regulations, "four factor weights shall be calculated, one weight for each of the three mandatory factors ... and one for all the optional factors taken together as a single factor weight." This bill would repeal provisions of Prop. 103 giving primary weight to the three listed factors and requiring the weighting of other optional factors which are adopted by regulation. It would also define the phrase "decreasing order of importance" to mean use of a sequential analysis of all of the factors which an insurer has elected to utilize. The bill does not specify what "sequential analysis" means. Proponents contend that Prop. 103 and the proposed regulations require more weight to be given to the three factors listed in Prop. 103 than is actuarially justified, based on historical risk data. They assert that SB 1433 would correct that imbalance. Opponents contend that this provision would effectively "gut" Proposition 103's main requirement that a person's driving record be the primary determinant of auto rates. It does so by eliminating the Commissioner's authority and responsibility to establish the weight of the various factors, and by redefining "decreasing order of importance" to be "sequential analysis" in a manner which has little to do with the weight a particular factor is given. (The bill does not define "sequential analysis" but a December, 1994, Department of Insurance report noted that sequential analysis simply describes the order SB 1433 (Peace) Page j in which factors are considered, not the weight to be assigned the factors.) Opponents point out that the use of so many factors, and not limiting them in how they are weighted, can and will overwhelm the initiative's primary factors, as listed in Section 1861.02. The result, opponents argue, is that the bill will provide insurers with virtually absolute discretion to rate any way they wish, including precisely as they did prior to Proposition 103, and eliminate the focus of Prop. 103 on factors under the control of the driver, such as driving record. SHOULD PROP. 103'S WEIGHTING REQUIREMENTS (PRIORITY TO THE THREE LISTED FACTORS AND THEN ANY OTHER FACTORS, AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER), BE REPEALED? SHOULD PROP. 103 BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THE CONSIDERATION OF OTHER RATING FACTORS ON AN EQUAL OR GREATER BASIS AS A PERSON'S DRIVING RECORD AND EXPERIENCE? 3. Should any rate which is set by using the proposed ratings factors of this bill be deemed to be in compliance with Prop. 103 and not "excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory"? Proposed new subdivision (f) to Section 1861.02 would provide: "No rate established pursuant to this section shall be in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 1861.05 (which prohibits rates that are "inadequate, excessive, or unfairly discriminatory"). Proponents contend that a rate which is set in accordance with the provisions of this bill should be deemed to be a legal rate per se. Opponents object to this provision, contending that the list of proposed factors and the lack of weighting between the factors would allow an insurer to "redline" legally. SB 1433 (Peace) Page k 4. Does SB 1433 "further the purposes of Prop. 103"? As noted above, Proposition 103 can be amended by the Legislature on a 2/3 vote, and only to further its purposes. In Amwest Surety Insurance Company v. Wilson, the California Supreme Court invalidated a statute which was enacted by the Legislature as an amendment to Proposition 103. The Court held that Legislative pronouncements that an amendment furthers the purposes of an initiative have little effect, and that the judiciary has the duty to assure that legislative enactments comply with the restrictions placed by the voters on legislative discretion. Specifically, the Court held that since the initiative by its own terms applies to surety insurance, the legislation which exempted surety insurance from certain provisions of the initiative was invalid. Proponents contend the bill resolves a contradiction in the statute between Sections 1861.02 and 1861.05, and therefore further the purposes of Prop. 103. Opponents of SB 1433 question whether the bill is a lawful amendment of Proposition 103, pursuant to the "further the purposes" provision as construed in Amwest. First, they point out that the effect of SB 1433 will be to allow insurers to rate policies in virtually the same manner as they did prior to enactment of the initiative. Since one of the stated key purposes of the initiative was to change the way insurers rated automobile insurance policies, an amendment to the initiative which results in virtually no change cannot further its purposes. Second, opponent contest the assertion that there is an ambiguity between two provisions of the initiative which require legislative clarification. They point to the long-standing rule of statutory construction which provides that a specific provision of law controls over a general provision, even if both appear to apply to a particular situation. Thus, they make the case that there is not any ambiguity as between Section 1861.02 and Section 1861.05 to be clarified by legislation. They point to language in the Supreme Court's decisions upholding Proposition 103 to support the conclusion that SB 1433 (Peace) Page l the two provisions are fully reconcilable, and assert that it is irrational to suggest that the initiative adopted specific criteria in Section 1861.02 which would violate another provision of the initiative, rendering the criteria irrelevant. Third, they point out that the bill repeals certain key components of the initiative, and therefore cannot survive under the Amwest decision. Eliminating the Commissioner's authority to decide what optional factors shall be used, and the weight to be given those factors, usurps a role that the initiative gave to the elected Commissioner, not to the Legislature. Finally, re-defining "decreasing order of importance" by reference to "sequential analysis," an approach which has nothing to do with "weight" or "importance" of the factor, also defeats a key purpose of the initiative -- to protect the status or significance of the factors specified in Section 1861.02. Fourth, the proposed use of optional factors which have not been determined to have a substantial relationship to the risk of loss, as the initiative requires, also runs contrary to the purposes of Prop. 103. Under the bill, the insurer's free use of factors in a duplicative manner or potentially unrelated manner can undermine the protections of Prop. 103. DOES SB 1433 "FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF PROP. 103"? Related legislation: None Known Support: Association of California Insurance Companies; Zenith Insurance Company; National Association of Independent Insurers; Personal Insurance Federation; Alliance of American Insurers; Automobile Club of Southern California Opposition: Prop. 103 Enforcement Project; Consumers Union; Consumer Attorneys of California; California Democratic Council; Congress of California Seniors; Americans for Democratic Action; Consumer Action; SB 1433 (Peace) Page m Consumer Coalition of California; The Greenlining Institute; Center for Public Interest Law; Utility Consumers Action Network; Southern California Organizing Committee Prior Legislation: None Known **************