Chief Judge Says CA Insurance Regulators Flouted Consumer Protections
Los Angeles, CA – The Chief Administrative Law Judge of the California Department of Insurance has concluded that the agency is flouting laws designed to protect Californians against insurance overcharges and arbitrary decision-making by the agency. The ruling has galvanized the insurance industry and a Department attorney to ask Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to overturn key portions of the Chief Judge’s decisions.
In a lengthy rebuke of the procedures that Insurance Commissioners have utilized when consumers challenge proposed rates as unlawful under Proposition 103, Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) Kristin I. Rosi noted that settlements between the Department, insurance companies and consumer representatives must by law be subject to review by judges within the agency’s independent judicial unit, the Administrative Hearing Bureau. That is “an essential part of [Proposition 103’s] rate proceeding framework, meant to ensure public oversight and protection,” Judge Rosi explained.
“When the parties ignore settlement regulations meant to provide specific oversight, California consumers are once again left without assurances that the implemented rate is fundamentally fair and reasonable.” And it “permits insurance carriers and the Department to freeze out consumer groups from any negotiated resolution in contravention of Proposition 103’s stated purpose of fostering public access and information.”
Read the CALJ Decision.
In a letter, Consumer Watchdog urged Mr. Lara “not to interfere with the Decisions of the Chief Administrative Law Judge and the Administrative Hearing Bureau in these matters.”
“Neutral judges are a central principle of the rule of law, which is why the voters intended that administrative law judges oversee how rates are set under Proposition 103 to prevent political interference,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and author of Proposition 103. “We have long objected to the practices that the Chief Judge has criticized, and we strongly embrace the principles and protections of the Chief Judge’s rulings. They are necessary to maintain the integrity and fairness of the process under which the Commissioner approves proposed rates.”
Read Consumer Watchdog’s Letter.
Read Filings from State Farm, Allstate, and insurance industry lobbyists.
Read the Department of Insurance Rate Enforcement Bureau’s Letter.
Dispute Arises as Commissioner Lara Offers Insurers Higher Rates, Less Public Scrutiny
Under insurance reform Proposition 103, insurance companies are required to apply to the elected Insurance Commissioner for approval of changes in rates and premiums; open their books to public scrutiny and justify rate those changes before they go into effect; and allow consumers to challenge requests they believe are improper. The CALJ rulings – in six separate rate cases – confirm that the Insurance Commissioner’s staff, insurance companies, and consumer groups that challenge excessive rates or unlawful practices must present an agreement on a rate change to the administrative judges who are independent of the Commissioner, for their initial review.
Two major insurance companies, State Farm and Allstate – whose previous rate increases are among those criticized by the CALJ’s rulings – have joined an agency attorney to urge the Commissioner to reverse the Chief Judge. Four insurance industry Sacramento lobbying firms have also joined the call to overturn the Chief Judge’s rulings.
The CALJ’s rulings come as Commissioner Lara has proposed new regulations based on proposals long desired by the insurance industry that will cause insurance rates to skyrocket for home, renter, auto and small business insurance.
Lara has also announced a plan to undermine or eliminate key procedural protections the voters established that mandate insurance companies apply for approval of rate increases, open their books to public scrutiny to justify rate changes before they go into effect, and allow the public to challenge requests they believe are unjust.
Consumer Watchdog has utilized Proposition 103 “public participation” rights to save California consumers over $6 billion since 2003. Indeed, Chief Judge Rosi’s rulings were made in the context of requests submitted by Consumer Watchdog for compensation for its work in those seven challenges. Under Prop 103, insurers must pay for that advocacy when consumer representatives make a “substantial contribution,” a determination made by judges at the Administrative Hearing Bureau. In each of the orders by CALJ Rosi, Consumer Watchdog was found to have made a substantial contribution to the outcome of the proceedings.
A little noticed provision in a bill backed by Lara and the insurance lobby in 2023 to dismantle Proposition 103’s protections would have allowed him to appoint the CALJ. Sacramento lawmakers refused to consider the legislation.
