StopProp17.org and Brave New Films Team Up On Video-Spoof Of Mercury’s Campaign

Santa Monica, CA – Mercury Insurance’s campaign for Prop 17 is making a large television advertisement buy, according to sources who shared the information with the Campaign for Consumer Rights. The grassroots campaign against Prop 17 has learned that Mercury Insurance is preparing to begin airing its first TV spot within the next several days.

Mercury Insurance is the sponsor and 99% funder of Proposition 17 on the June ballot, which would give auto insurance companies a new way to raise premiums on California drivers.

“Mercury Insurance will soon be all over the airwaves with deceptive ads that will never mention the true cost of Prop 17,” said Doug Heller with Campaign for Consumer Rights. “Mercury will spare no expense in its campaign and hopes voters will not notice that the promises of Prop 17’s savings are actually being made by an insurance company that is spending millions on the initiative.”

New Brave New Films Video Spoofs Mercury’s Prop 17 Campaign

Just as Mercury is preparing to launch its expensive ad campaign, the grassroots campaign against Prop 17 has launched a new video spoofing the insurance company’s pitch to Californians. The video, produced by filmmaker Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films, follows a Mercury salesman as he tries to convince voters that an insurance company would finance Prop 17 just to help Californians. The video is available at:  http://bit.ly/daI8vS

“Prop 17 is an April Fool’s Joke on California voters,” said Heller. “Mercury Insurance is spending millions on Prop 17 so Mercury can make more money, and it wants California drivers to pick up the tab.”

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

Prop 17 would create an insurance surcharge on drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years, or who missed a single payment. Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for car insurance when they sought to restart coverage. Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing such a surcharge in California.

Prop 17 is opposed by consumer and citizen groups including Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of California, California Alliance of Retired Americans and VoteVets.org.

- 30 -

For more information, please visit:  http://StopProp17.org – or find us on twitter at:  http://twitter.com/stopmercury and facebook at:  http://www.facebook.com/stopprop17

Contact: Doug Heller 310-392-0522 ext. 309

Santa Monica, CA – Mercury Insurance’s treatment of its policyholder Amerigraphics, a printing and graphics business in of Sherman Oaks, California, was “despicable” according to a Court of Appeal ruling issued earlier this week.  Mercury Insurance is the sponsor and 99% funder of Proposition 17 on the June ballot, which would give auto insurance companies a new way to raise premiums on California drivers.

The Court’s strong language came in the case Amerigraphics, Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Co. (Case #B208654).  Mercury had appealed the case after being found to have engaged in bad faith with “malice, fraud or oppression” for refusing to pay a reasonable claim in a timely manner after its policyholder’s business was flooded.

“Mercury tries to spin the facts,” the Court explained in its decision.  But, the court also wrote, “the evidence showed that Mercury was intentionally dishonest and showed a conscious disregard of Amerigraphics’s rights.”

“Voters shouldn’t trust a ballot initiative fully funded by a company that judges called ‘dishonest’ and ‘despicable’ in its treatment of policyholders,”  said Doug Heller with Stop Prop 17.  “Mercury’s multi-million dollar campaign to sell Prop 17 and the auto insurance surcharges it would allow is just as dishonest as Mercury’s treatment of its customers.”

The Court upheld the ruling in favor of Amerigraphics, though it reduced the jury-awarded punitive damages Mercury had to pay, from $1.7 million to $500,000, in order to comply with Court-mandated limits on damage awards.  The decision can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/AmerigraphicsVMercury032310.pdf

Earlier this year, the California Department of Insurance released documents exposing more than a decade of bad behavior by Mercury.  In the reports, the Department found that Mercury had written and unwritten rules to surcharge or deny policies to members of the military, self-employed customers, the unemployed and unmarried people living together.  Describing Mercury’s behavior in a 2009 legal action against the company, government regulators wrote: “Mercury has a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference.”

Prop 17: Another Way to Abuse California Insurance Customers
Prop 17 would create an insurance surcharge on drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years, or who missed a single payment.  Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for car insurance when they sought to restart coverage.  Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing such a surcharge in California.

The initiative is opposed by consumer and citizen groups including Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of California, California Alliance of Retired Americans and VoteVets.org.

- 30 -

For more information, please visit: http://StopProp17.org – or find us on twitter at: http://twitter.com/stopmercury – and facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/stopprop17

Consumer Advocate Challenges Insurance Executive Behind Prop 17 to Debate Initiative at Legislative Hearing

Harvey Rosenfield to Mercury Insurance Chairman: Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is

Santa Monica, CA — The founder of Consumer Watchdog today challenged George Joseph, the founder and chair of Mercury Insurance, to show up to a legislative hearing in Sacramento to publicly defend his ballot initiative, Proposition 17. Prop 17, which would allow insurance companies to raise premiums on drivers based on their history of buying auto insurance, is 99% funded by Mercury and a particular focus of Joseph’s decades long effort to evade accountability to consumers.

Harvey Rosenfield wrote to Joseph today urging him to stop hiding behind his public relations flacks, front groups and radio ads and attend next Wednesday’s joint hearing of the California Assembly Insurance Committee and Senate Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee to explain why voters in California should trust Mercury Insurance and its quest to enact Prop 17.

In his letter to Joseph, Rosenfield points out that the insurance executive has privately defended his initiative in recent calls to several people who have spoken out against Prop 17.  Now Joseph has an obligation to come forward and publicly defend this culmination of a decade-long attack on state consumer protections, Rosenfield writes.

“The time has come for you to stop hiding behind your paid surrogates and defend your Captain Ahab-like quest to surcharge and discriminate against motorists before the public…This is not like one of those legislative hearings where you can do your dirty work through lobbyists and donations to the politicians. Will you be there to defend publicly what you are saying privately, or will it be another one of your flunkies who does your bidding?

“I’ll be waiting to see if you have the courage to face me and our publicly elected officials. If you don’t, sir, you have no business sponsoring a ballot measure in this state.”

In the letter, which can be found at http://bit.ly/bDUl7s, Rosenfield notes state agency reports on Mercury’s history of discrimination, fines by state regulators and that Mercury ranks at the bottom of the most recent JD Power customer satisfaction survey: 27th of 32 large auto insurers.

Rosenfield suggests that Joseph fears voters will not trust his campaign to pass Prop 17 if Californians learned more about the company funding the initiative.

“Are you hiding because you are concerned that your sorry record might actually affect the public’s view of your initiative?…Come out from behind the gilded boardroom doors and let’s have an honest and thorough public discussion about Prop 17.”

Proposition 17 would create an insurance surcharge on drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years, or who missed a payment.  Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for car insurance when they sought to restart coverage.  Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing the surcharge in California.

The initiative is opposed by consumer and citizen groups including Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of California, California Alliance of Retired Americans and VoteVets.org.

- 30 -

For more information, please visit: http://StopProp17.org – or find us on twitter at: http://twitter.com/stopmercury and facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/stopprop17

Contra Costa Times Urges Readers to Vote No on Prop 17

Santa Monica, CA – The campaign to stop the insurance company-sponsored Prop 17 today received the endorsement of the Contra Costa Times <http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_14680005>, telling its readers to “Vote No On Deceptive Proposition 17.”

Proposition 17 would surcharge drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years.  Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for insurance when they sought to restart coverage.  Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing the surcharge in California.

In today’s editorial against Prop 17, the Contra Costa Times writes:

“Californians should have no trouble figuring out how to vote on Proposition 17, the auto insurance measure. All they have to do is ask themselves if Mercury Insurance Co., which spent $3.5 million to qualify and support the initiative, has consumers’ welfare or its own financial interests in mind. Prop. 17, which is almost entirely funded by Mercury Insurance, is designed to fool voters into believing it is simply a change in the law that would allow insurers to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on policies to new customers who switch auto insurance companies.”

And on Prop 17’s impact on California motorists:

“Huge surcharges of several hundred dollars or more would be allowed even for motorists with good driving records. The fact is many Californians have had lapses in their auto insurance when they served in the military, went to college, suffered illnesses, lost their jobs or lived in a large city with good public transportation.

The threat of paying surcharges appears, in part, to be designed to force some people to pay for auto insurance during periods when they do not need it.”

Contra Costa Times hits the nail on the head with the (multi) million-dollar question:

“Why else would Mercury spend millions of its own dollars on the measure?”

For more information, please visit: http://StopProp17.org – or find us on twitter at: http://twitter.com/stopmercury and facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Prop-17/338876074483?ref=ts> .

- 30 -

Judge Rejects Mercury Insurance’s Lies; Voters Will Be Told of Prop 17 Car Insurance Surcharges

Sacramento, CA – Judge Allen Sumner has upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Official Title and Summary of Proposition 17, which warns the measure will allow car insurers to raise premiums.  The ruling means voters will learn in the ballot pamphlet that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise rates on California drivers based on their history of buying auto insurance.

Attorneys for Mercury Insurance failed as it tried to convince the court to remove any reference to the insurance surcharges that Prop 17 will create.  Consumer advocates hailed the decision as a victory for voters, who will have the opportunity to cut through Mercury’s multi-million dollar campaign of lies and read a fair assessment of the insurance company’s initiative in the Voter Guide.

“When voters face the deceptive, multi-million dollar insurance company ad campaign for Prop 17, at least they’ll be able to turn to Attorney General Brown’s summary to learn the truth,” said consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield who co-authored one of the ballot arguments against Prop 17.  “Now that the Judge has made it clear that Prop 17 lets insurance companies raise car insurance premiums, will the insurance company backers of Prop 17 stop lying about it?”

With the ruling, voters will read the following in the Official Title and Summary of Prop 17:

“Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

The Judge rejected Mercury’s attempt to strike out much of Prop 17 opponents’ ballot arguments. He did require two cosmetic changes to the arguments, so the main argument against 17 now includes the statement:

It punishes our troops, among others.  This initiative raises rates on Californians who stop their insurance, including military serving stateside.  Penalizing these drivers by forcing them to pay more when they restart their insurance is wrong.

The rebuttal argument was amended to read: “you will get hit with surcharges of up to $1,000/year.”

Proposition 17, which has been funded with $3.5 million from Mercury Insurance, would surcharge drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years.  Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for insurance when they sought to restart coverage.  Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing the surcharge in California.

- 30 -

Court to Decide Whether Mercury Insurance Is Telling Truth About Prop 17

Mercury Wants Court to Censor Attorney General and Silence Opponents;

Desperate to Hide Prop 17 Car Insurance Price Hikes From Voters

Sacramento, CA – Mercury Insurance’s attempts to deny voters complete and truthful information about Proposition 17 will be heard in a Sacramento courtroom this afternoon.  Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner will consider Mercury’s challenge to the Attorney General’s summary of Proposition 17, the Mercury-sponsored June ballot measure to allow insurance companies to raise car insurance premiums on Californians based on their history of auto insurance coverage. Also before the court is a Mercury lawsuit challenging the ballot arguments that were made against Prop 17 filed by opponents of the measure. A decision must be issued no later than Monday, when the official Voter Guide must be sent to the state printer. The court could rule from the bench today.

At the heart of the cases is Mercury’s attempt to hide from voters the auto insurance surcharges that Prop 17 will allow.

The auto insurance company claims that the Attorney General’s Official Title and Summary of the initiative should only describe alleged discounts created by Prop 17, but not mention the surcharges it would also create.   In the second case, Mercury wants the Court to delete about 60% of Prop 17 opponents’ ballot arguments. Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog and VoteVets.org authored the main argument against Prop 17.  Former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and former Attorney General John Van de Kamp authored the Rebuttal to Mercury’s pro-Prop 17 argument.

Mercury’s lawsuit to silence Prop 17’s opponents is based on the same deceptions that permeate the insurance company’s own arguments in favor of Prop 17.  Mercury’s ballot arguments falsely state that the Proposition 17 rating factor is already allowed by law, and misstate what will happen if Proposition 17 passes. Consumer Watchdog founder and ballot signer Harvey Rosenfield counter-sued to challenge the false and misleading arguments that Mercury has written for the June election Voter Guide.

“Mercury Insurance wants to spend millions to lie to the voters about Prop 17, just as the company has lied to motorists, the news media, Insurance Commissioners and the courts in the past,” said Rosenfield.  “But under California law, Mercury’s right to campaign for Prop 17 does not give it the right to make false or misleading statements. Mercury started this legal fight by suing to stop anyone from telling the truth about its initiative. Today will be judgment day for this deceptive company.”

Front and center for the Court this afternoon is the question of whether or not the Attorney General correctly describes Prop 17 in the Official Title and Summary when he explains that Prop 17 “will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

The Attorney General’s summary follows the analysis by the California Department of Insurance as well as a California Court of Appeal decision in a case involving nearly identical legislation sponsored by Mercury.  Every independent authority that has reviewed Mercury’s proposal has made it clear that under California law, if one group of customers gets a discount, another group of customers must pay a surcharge in order to ensure that there is enough money to pay all the insurance claims.  That rule holds for Prop 17: if some drivers get a discount – customers without a lapse in auto insurance coverage over 90 days during the preceding five years – then others pay a surcharge – for not purchasing insurance at some point in the past, even if they didn’t need it, or if they missed a single payment.  California voters prohibited this insurance practice when they passed Prop 103 in 1988 in order to end pricing schemes that allowed insurance companies to overcharge good drivers.  If Prop 17 were enacted, millions of good drivers, including military personnel who didn’t need auto insurance while they lived on base, will face surcharges of as much as $1,000 when they need to buy auto insurance again. The result will be a surge in the number of uninsured motorists, as occurred before Proposition 103.

Because California voters are naturally suspicious of insurance company funded ballot initiatives, and because no one wants to pay higher auto insurance rates, Mercury has cornered itself into a political argument that relies on the lie that Prop 17 is only about discounts.  Throughout its litigation papers, Mercury makes several different arguments for why the Attorney General and initiative opponents have it all wrong about Prop 17.  But each argument fails because it denies a basic truth that, as the AG explains in his brief: “in the world of car insurance pricing, you cannot have a discount without a surcharge. The only people who probably are not aware of this principle are the voters.”

Links to some of the key briefs in the cases are available here: http://bit.ly/9Pr8z0

- 30 -

Attorney General Tells Court Voters Should Not Be “Misled”: Mercury’s Prop 17 “Will Allow Insurance Companies” To Raise Premiums

More Confirmation Insurance Company Is Lying To Public

Santa Monica, CA – Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed a legal brief in Sacramento Superior Court over Proposition 17 stating, “The proponent’s arguments that the Attorney General cannot tell voters that this measure would allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance for certain drivers is without legal merit.”

Proposition 17 backer Mercury Insurance, which has spent more than $3.5 million on the initiative, is challenging Brown’s right to say the June ballot measure “will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage” in the measure’s official title and summary. The legal showdown takes place in Sacramento Superior Court Friday.

“If the title and summary does not make voters aware that the measure will allow surcharges, voters will be misled into thinking that Proposition 17 simply allows insurers to offer a new discount,” the Attorney General’s brief states. View a copy of the brief at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/AGReplyBrief031010.pdf

********************************************************
NEWS CONFERENCE PRIOR TO COURT HEARING FRIDAY
Consumer advocates will hold a news conference at 1:00 PM, prior to tomorrow’s 1:30 PM hearing on the Attorney General’s Title and Summary and Mercury’s lawsuit challenging the ballot arguments presented by opponents of Prop 17.
Location: Sacramento Superior Courthouse Steps, 720 9th Street @1 PM PST.
Contact: Naomi Seligman, 310-392-0522, ext. 318
********************************************************
Key excerpts from the Attorney General’s brief follow:

“What is certain is that any company that decides to offer this new discount will be allowed to surcharge drivers who don’t qualify for it. And that is all the title and summary says. The fact that car insurance is complicated should not prevent voters from being accurately and fully informed about the key components of Proposition 17.”

“The proponents and opponents of Proposition 17, as well as the Department of Insurance, are all well aware that in the world of car insurance pricing, you cannot have a discount without a surcharge. The only people who probably are not aware of this principle are the voters.”

“Proposition 17 provides that insurance companies may offer the new discount “[n]otwithstanding section 1861.02 (c)[.]” The  effect of this language is to ensure that companies will be allowed to impose surcharges as well as the new discount. Thus, contrary to the proponent’s suggestions, the actual language of Proposition 17 allows surcharges by waiving the statutory provision that would have prohibited them.”

Prop 17 opponent Harvey Rosenfield also filed a brief with the court in support of the Attorney General’s Title and Summary, calling Mercury’s efforts “another attempt by Mercury to prevent the voters from learning the truth about the true impact of Proposition 17 on California’s motorists…. [Mercury wants] the Attorney General’s title and summary for Proposition 17 to include ‘all the sweet’ – the initiative’s offer of a new discount to drivers who have continuously maintained insurance coverage with any insurance company – while excluding ‘all the bitter’ – any mention of the corresponding surcharges that would be imposed on those drivers who have not continuously maintained insurance coverage.”

Rosenfield’s brief in the case is available at: http://bit.ly/a2EziJ

About Prop 17
Prop 17, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, would give insurance companies a new way to raise premiums by allowing insurance companies to base premiums on whether or not a customer bought auto insurance in the past. Voters prohibited this practice in 1988 with the passage of Prop 103 to ensure that drivers wouldn’t face unnecessary hurdles to buying auto insurance.  For example, Prop 17 would allow insurance companies to unfairly surcharge military personnel who stopped driving while they were sent to a base in another state, for example, when they returned to civilian life and tried to sign up for auto insurance.

- 30 -

For more information visit: http://www.StopProp17.org
Stop Prop 17-Sponsored by Campaign for Consumer Rights

Battle Over Prop 17 Language: Court Hearing and News Conf. at Sacramento Superior Court, this Friday, March 12th @1 p.m.

Stop Prop 17 Submits New 14-page Brief Tearing Apart Mercury’s Lies

A battle over the Proposition 17 ballot pamphlet language will come to a head this Friday, March 12, when a Sacramento Superior Court judge hears arguments in a series of cases related to the Mercury Insurance-sponsored measure. Prop 17, on the June ballot, would allow insurance companies to raise premiums on California drivers based on their history of prior auto insurance coverage, a practice that has been outlawed since voters enacted Proposition 103 in 1988.

Mercury Insurance and its surrogates filed a lawsuit last month seeking to rewrite both the No on 17 ballot argument (authored by Consumer Watchdog, Consumers Union and VoteVets.org) and the Rebuttal to the supporters’ argument (authored by former California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and former Attorney General John Van de Kamp). Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield has filed a cross-petition challenging false and misleading information that Mercury Insurance and its ballot signers have attempted to include in the ballot arguments in favor of Prop 17.

The Attorney General will also appear before the Court to ask that the Court allow the Secretary of State to strengthen and clarify the ballot title and summary, to correct a filing error by the Attorney General’s office. Mercury Insurance will ask the Court to rewrite the Attorney General’s summary arguing that the ballot pamphlet should only describe discounts and ignore the insurance surcharge that Prop 17 creates.

Today, Stop Prop 17 posted its newly-submitted 14-page brief explaining why Mercury’s arguments are “just poppycock.” The brief offers a succinct look at the debate around Prop 17 and why the Attorney General must be allowed to explain that Prop 17 subjects California motorists to rate hikes on their auto insurance premiums. As the brief explains:

[Mercury wants] the Attorney General’s title and summary for Proposition 17 to include “all the sweet” … while excluding “all the bitter.”

A copy of the brief is available at: http://bit.ly/a2EziJ

WHO: Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and author of Prop 103

WHAT: News Conference prior to Prop 17 court hearing

WHERE: Steps Sacramento Superior Courthouse – 9th Street Entrance
720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA

WHEN: March 12th, @1 p.m. PST, prior to hearing

NOTE – To Record Trial: The trial begins @1:30 PM. Media must submit a request form (available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/mc500.pdf ) to the Court’s Public Information Officer. Phone: (916) 591-0050

- 30 -

March 4, 2010
Contact: Naomi Seligman, 310-392-0522 ext. 318
Doug Heller, ext. 309
Harvey Rosenfield, ext. 303

Consumer Advocate Harvey Rosenfield Counter-Sues to Remove Mercury’s False and Misleading Statements from Prop 17 Ballot Arguments

Mercury Wants to Use Taxpayer Money to Spread Lies to Voters on Prop 17, Consumer Group Says

Santa Monica, CA – Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court urging the court to remove false and misleading statements that Mercury Insurance Company has made in its ballot arguments that will appear in the Official Voter Guide for the June ballot.

Mercury is the sponsor of Proposition 17, the controversial initiative that “will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage,” according to the ballot summary that Attorney General Jerry Brown has proposed to include in the Voter Guide.

“Mercury Insurance Company is attempting to put one over on the voters of California and this Court,” the lawsuit says. “Mercury and its surrogates are entitled to use the space allotted to them in the official Ballot Pamphlet to make the most persuasive case they can in support of the initiative…But the law does not allow Mercury to use the official Ballot Pamphlet to propagate false and misleading statements regarding either the terms of its proposed initiative or the state of existing law. And that is exactly what Mercury has done…”

The 202-page lawsuit identifies numerous false and misleading statements made by Mercury’s ballot signers.  For example, responding to criticism of Prop 17 by military vets and USAA, an insurance company that serves the armed forces, Mercury claims in its argument that soldiers living stateside are exempted from Prop 17’s surcharges, and that California consumers are currently charged using the “continuous coverage” factor that Prop 17 is promoting. These assertions are false, as explained in a brief summary below.  The lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/RosenfieldProp17Suit.pdf

Prop 103, the 1988 insurance rate rollback and regulation measure, bans the surcharge Mercury is now asking voters to approve. The lawsuit details how Mercury Insurance and its chairman George Joseph first flouted Proposition 103, then tried to override it with legislation nearly identical to Prop 17. Each time, the state Insurance Commissioner and the courts rejected the same arguments contained in Mercury’s Prop 17 ballot arguments, and concluded that the proposal would raise premiums for many motorists. (Recently released internal reports by the California Department of Insurance confirm that Mercury violated the law.)

“We already knew this corrupt insurance company would spend tens of millions of dollars to lie to voters about Prop 17 – it spent $3.5 million just to stick the measure on the June ballot,” said Rosenfield. “Now Mercury is trying deceive the voters through devious lies in court and in the official state Voter Guide  – Mercury wants to mislead voters at taxpayers’ expense.”

Accuracy of Voter Guide Key as Mercury Spends Millions on Deceptive Campaign

The Voter Guide contains official analyses of each ballot measure prepared by the Attorney General and the Legislative Analyst (which reports to the state legislature). It also contains arguments and rebuttals prepared by supporters and opponents of each initiative. The Guide is produced by the Secretary of State and mailed to registered voters at taxpayer expense. The Voter Guide is considered one of the most important sources of accurate information concerning ballot propositions. The truthfulness of statements about Prop 17 in the Voter Guide will be crucial because Mercury is expected to spend millions on deceptive radio and television advertising, consumer advocates say.

The challenge to Mercury’s ballot arguments will be heard by Sacramento Superior Court on March 12th in conjunction with two other Prop 17 lawsuits: one filed by Mercury’s campaign against Rosenfield, Elisa Odabashian of Consumers Union, former Attorney General John Van de Kamp, former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, and Jon Soltz, chair of VoteVets.org, who signed the ballot arguments against 17; and a second lawsuit filed by Attorney General Jerry Brown to correct and strengthen the official Prop 17 Title and Summary that will appear in the voter pamphlet. Mercury is expected to oppose the correction.

Fred Woocher of the Los Angeles-based law firm Strumwasser and Woocher is representing Harvey Rosenfield and other opponents of Prop 17 in the suits.

A copy of the lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/RosenfieldProp17Suit.pdf

Examples of false and misleading statements challenged by Rosenfield’s lawsuit:

>  Impact on the military. Prop 17’s surcharge for drivers who have not had five years of continuous insurance coverage has a limited exception for only those soldiers who are “absen[t] from the United States while in military service.”  Soldiers serving the country on base in the states are not exempt, even though they might not need to have and pay for automobile insurance while on base.  Nonetheless, the Rebuttal Argument falsely claims that the ballot measure exempts soldiers who “cancel insurance when serving overseas or in another state” from its surcharges.  When Mercury sponsored SB 841 in 2003 to allow the same surcharge against California motorists, it included an exemption for soldiers serving in other states. But Prop 17 has no such protection for stateside soldiers.

> Current law. Prop 17 creates a new rating factor in order to circumvent the consumer protections of current law and surcharge many good drivers in California.  But throughout its ballot arguments, Mercury pretends that the new rating factor it proposes to create, “continuous coverage,” already exists under current law. The Argument in Favor of 17 states: “Under current law, drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same company are eligible for a continuous coverage discount.” This is untrue. The language of Proposition 17 itself states that it creates a new rating factor “in addition to” and “[n]otwithstanding” current law. Mercury is falsely equating discounts for motorists who remain with the same company for a period of years, which are permitted under Proposition 103, with a new rating factor the company wants to use to base premiums on whether or not people can show they have been continuously insured by any company with no lapses over 90 days over a five year period and have had no missed payments. Mercury has made the same false statements in previous court cases, and the courts have consistently rejected Mercury’s effort to equate the two.

> Surcharges. Mercury’s ballot Argument in Favor claims that “Yes on 17 eliminates an existing surcharge for changing companies” and its Rebuttal says that Prop “17 would allow drivers to take your continuous coverage discount with you.” There is no existing surcharge for changing companies, and there is no existing “continuous coverage discount.” Mercury’s claims are false. Prop 17 would create a surcharge on good drivers who have not had five years of continuous auto insurance and would override Proposition 103’s ban on surcharges against the previously uninsured or those who have had a lapse in coverage, even if these motorists are good drivers.

For more information, please visit: http://www.stopprop17.org or find us on twitter at:  http://twitter.com/stopmercury

- 30 –

Attorney General Brown Sues To Strengthen Prop 17 Title & Summary

Mercury Insurance Initiative “Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance”

Santa Monica – The Campaign for Consumer Rights, the campaign affiliate of Consumer Watchdog, lauded a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Jerry Brown to correct and strengthen the official Title and Summary of Proposition 17 in order to clarify that the initiative “will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous coverage.” The Title and Summary currently reads: “May allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not qualify for discount.”

Mercury Insurance is opposing the change, which will be decided in court on March 12th, along with other changes to the ballot pamphlet. A copy of the suit, which was filed yesterday, is available at: http://bit.ly/bSfZeG

Proposition 17, sponsored and funded by Mercury Insurance, would allow insurance companies to surcharge drivers based on their history of purchasing auto insurance. That practice is currently illegal in California due to the 1988 insurance reform measure Proposition 103. Despite Mercury’s campaign rhetoric that Prop 17 is only about discounts, the California Department of Insurance and now the Attorney General have concluded that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise premiums on drivers who, for virtually any reason, did not have insurance coverage at some point in the past five years.

“Jerry Brown is taking his duties seriously. He is giving voters the most accurate information possible to make an informed choice on this deceptive ballot measure,” said Harvey Rosenfield, who, as an opponent of Proposition 17 was named as a real party in interest in the Attorney General’s lawsuit.

Mercury Insurance has already spent $3.5 million to put the initiative on the ballot, and tens of millions more is expected to be spent by the insurance company on advertising and its front groups to deceive voters into voting for Prop 17.

For more information, please visit: http://StopProp17.org – Or find us on twitter at: http://twitter.com/stopmercury.

- 30 -