Almaden Valley Lawyers®
Propositions 200, 201, and 202 are seen as consumer rip-offsQuestionI work for a Silicon Valley computer chip maker. Our CEO has told all employees that we should vote in favor of Propositions 200, 201, and 202 on the March ballot. What do you think about these propositions and why? Keith L. Dear Keith:There will be three anticonsumer initiatives on the March 26 ballot which, if passed, would severely limit your right to use the legal system. Proposition 200 Proposition 200 is called "no-fault motor vehicle insurance-tort liability initiative statute." What does this initiative mean to you? It means that when you get hit by a car it is "no one’s fault" - and your rates go up. You are forced to collect against your own insurance policy just to get your medical bills paid, even in cases of serious injury or death. (My father back in Iowa would say that this is like the fox guarding the chicken coop.) Under Prop. 200, your auto insurer decides whether the medical treatment you receive is "medically appropriate." You and your own doctor won’t make that decision. Now, isn’t that a good idea? Hardly. It also shifts costs of auto accidents to taxpayers because social security and worker’s compensation pay for auto injuries before your auto insurer pays. Under Prop. 200, a $1,000,000 no-fault policy is mentioned, but it doesn’t promise your rates won’t go up. This initiative also eliminates your right to sue a reckless driver who causes the death of your child. According to a study cited in the UCLA Law Review, no-fault increases drunk driving. With Prop. 200, wealthy insurance companies keep their lawyers and pay them whatever they want to, but when they don’t pay your claim, Prop. 200 makes it hard for you to get your own lawyer. Is this fair? I hope not. Under Prop. 200, the only winners are the insurance companies and the corporations that paid to put it on the ballot . . . you and every other consumer lose. Proposition 201 Proposition 201 is labeled "Attorney’s fees, shareholder actions, class actions, initiative statute." It imposes penalties on shareholder who would sue corporations. Even if shareholders win in court, and the jury award happens to be less than the corporation’s settlement amount, shareholders must pay all court costs and legal fees. This is labeled "loser-pays." Let’s see how that works. If shareholders get swindled, like in the Charles Keating/Lincoln Savings and Loan case, and if the swindlers offer $500,000 in settlement and the jury verdict comes in at $499,000, the shareholders and their attorneys would have to pay the swindler’s attorneys’ fees. Is that fair? I hope not. Under Prop. 201, corporate swindlers like Charles Keating go free because shareholders will be discouraged from bringing legitimate shareholder lawsuits to protect their investments, like pension funds and retirement funds. So, people who have a pension plan or retirement savings should vote "No" so they don’t become victims of stock swindlers. Shareholders will also be discouraged from filing legal actions under Prop. 201 because they will have to put up deposits even before they are allowed to file their suit at the courthouse - maybe millions of dollars - to pay the defendant corporation’s legal fees, the same cheating corporation that swindled them. Incredible! Prop. 201 is funded by corporations that had to settle lawsuits against them and pay back millions of dollars to their investors. Under Prop. 201, the only winners are the corporations that paid to put it on the ballot . . . you and every other consumer will lose. According to published reports, a few corporate contributors in favor of this proposition are:
The FTC estimates that Americans are losing a billion dollars a year to investment swindlers. Securities fraud involving senior citizens has reached epidemic proportions. The last thing we need is an initiative that encourages more fraud. Proposition 202 Finally, Proposition 202, "Attorney’s contingency fees, limits initiative statute," is touted as a vehicle for "early settlements," but is really a one-sided effort to deprive injured plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and fair compensation. Under Prop. 202, you would have to divulge your complete medical history, but the "allegedly responsible party" has no obligation to respond or provide any information. Insurance companies would undoubtedly give early low and unfair offers just to close their file. This proposition would keep you from hiring the best attorney, while allowing the other side to hire whomever they want. What are contingent fees? A contingent fee is a percentage of the recovery, either by settlement or trial, contingent or conditioned upon recovery. Thus, if the case is not successful, the attorney gets nothing for all of his or her time invested into the case. This could be worth, of course, several thousand dollars. Contingent-fee attorneys get paid only when consumers recover their money. The contingent fee system we now have gives injured consumers access to the legal system and the best lawyers available at the consumers’ choice. Contingent fee attorneys are the consumers’ lawyers who get unsafe automobiles off the road, protect people’s retirement savings from investment frauds, and force polluters to pay for cleaning up their poisonous waste. This doesn’t make contingent fee lawyers very popular on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley Board Rooms because they fight against products that kill, investment fraud schemes, insider stock trading, pension rip-offs, and toxic pollution. Of course, under Prop. 202, the consumer’s attorneys’ fees are limited - but not the hourly fees ($200-$400 and up) that the other side pays their attorneys, typically insurance companies, corporations, and wealthy individuals. Incredible! If you think this is fair, you must believe in Santa Clause, too. Who supports these draconian initiatives? Wealthy Silicon Valley millionaires. Who opposes these initiatives? Ralph Nader, the Congress of California Seniors, Consumers’ Union, California Public Interest Research Group, and United Policyholders, to name a few. So, on March 26, I hope there is an overwhelming "No!" vote on all three of these anticonsumer measures.
|