The attack is cloaked in AB 1109 (Escutia), a measure to revive what are known as "third-party" lawsuits against insurers. Until they were banned by the California Supreme Court in 1988, these suits provided lawyers with a way to turn minor injury accidents into a bonanza by alleging that an insurer hadn't settled fast enough or offered enough money.

This same technique, if restored by AB 1109, would let lawyers take uninsured drivers as clients and, despite the initiative, turn their cases into "bad faith bonanzas." The victims would be law-abiding motorists who comply with California's insurance requirements. In addition to increasing claims costs, the bill will inhibit the fight against insurance fraud. The Department of Finance estimates $25 million in additional court costs if the bill is enacted.

"Proposition 213 is not the complete answer to solving California's auto liability dilemma," said John H. Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California. "We need a system that can provide affordable insurance to everyone. Today our over-lawyered system prevents that." Restarting third-party lawsuits is a giant step backward for everyone except the litigation lotto players."

Sullivan noted that a Rand Institute for Civil Justice study found that a third of all auto accident claims are either totally fraudulent or inflated. That study also estimated that fraudulent and excessive claims account for approximately $100 to $130 of the average annual auto insurance premium.

In Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, the case that abolished third-party actions, the State Supreme Court cited undesirable social and economic consequences flowing from these actions in reaching its decision.

With legislators just back from their interim recess, the bill that would circumvent Proposition 213, which voters approved by a landslide 77%, must pass out of the Assembly by the end of January. Trial lawyers have been attacking the initiative in courts all over the state virtually from the day it passed.