Talk:1988 California Proposition 103

Wasn't this legislation a disaster

This article only quotes politicians saying this legislation was effective. I was given to understand it meant many in the state could not buy the insurance they needed and had to go to the unlicensed market (thereby with less protection).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

See, for instance, [1]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I was in CA at the time and working for State Farm (largest insurer in the state). Rumors were companies were suffering and it did seem to create an insurance crisis but I think people could still get insurance through CA’s assigned risk program. The biggest change I saw was AR had become quite large and claimed to be causing companies to operate at a loss. Once AR rates were allowed to rise the AR pool dropped dramatically and companies were once again profitable. I think it’s good to remember the insurance companies spent millions against 103 and after. The anti-gov pro-free-market crowd is also large and influential. Here is one analysis that contradicts all the doom and gloom claims - https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jaffee/papers/Auto2.pdf 47.187.224.141 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There were other issue with prop 103. It allowed insurance companies to make money. On lines of business that were not profitable, insurance companies were allowed to raise rates. So if a company was not making money in Personal Auto insurance a company could raise rates. The claim that insurance companies had to reduce rates by a certain percentage is not correct. 2603:6010:E303:CB00:9C97:27CE:C0CC:2F0C (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous to this, the insurance industry incurred the Liability Crisis of the 80's which caused major insurance companies to flat out cancel some insurance policies. Some states stopped the run off with emergency legislation and new laws and regulations came into play. 2603:6010:E303:CB00:9C97:27CE:C0CC:2F0C (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)