Breaking Court Decision Protects Consumers Against Unlawful Insurance Company Practices; Decision Expected to Impact California Auto Insurance Companies and Consumers.Business Editors/Legal Writers LOS LOS Length of stay, see there ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 11, 2004 A significant decision was handed down today by the California California (kăl'ĭfôr`nyə), most populous state in the United States, located in the Far West; bordered by Oregon (N), Nevada and, across the Colorado River, Arizona (E), Mexico (S), and the Pacific Ocean (W). Court of Appeal, protecting consumers from automobile insurance company abuses that violate Proposition 103, the landmark insurance reform initiative of 1988. In Donabedian v. Mercury, Civil Case B159982, the Plaintiff alleged that Mercury violated vi·o·late tr.v. vi·o·lat·ed, vi·o·lat·ing, vi·o·lates 1. To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example). 2. To assault (a person) sexually. 3. Proposition 103 by considering his lack of prior insurance as a factor in denying him a discount given to other insureds. Such conduct violates Proposition 103, which prohibits the use of an applicant's lack of prior insurance as a factor in giving discounts or determining rates and premiums. Mercury argued that only the Department of Insurance can hear such grievances. The trial court agreed with Mercury, and dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit lawsuit: see procedure; tort. . But today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, concluding that consumers have the right to bring an action in civil court for unlawful business practices which violate Proposition 103. Plaintiff's counsel, Drew Pomerance of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, and Mark Goshgarian of Goshgarian & Marshall Marshall. 1 City (1990 pop. 12,711), seat of Saline co., N central Mo.; inc. 1839. In a large farm area, it is a processing center for grain, eggs, meat, and dairy products. Marshall is the seat of Missouri Valley College. , hail this decision as a significant protection to consumers against unlawful insurance company practices. "With this decision, the Court of Appeal ensured that the integrity of Proposition 103 is preserved and that consumers have an unqualified right of access to the courts to redress Compensation for injuries sustained; recovery or restitution for harm or injury; damages or equitable relief. Access to the courts to gain Reparation for a wrong. REDRESS. The act of receiving satisfaction for an injury sustained. illegal conduct by insurers," say Pomerance and Goshgarian. Pomerance says this decision is particularly significant since it may influence similar cases that his law firm has filed against State Farm, Farmers, and 21st Century, impacting consumers statewide. "We expect this decision will impact thousands of California consumers who may be paying excessive auto insurance premiums based on the fact that they've they've Contraction of they have. they've have had a gap of coverage in the past three years," adds Pomerance. For more information, please contact Drew Pomerance at 310-470-1869 or Mark Goshgarian at 818-591-9000. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion