California Court of Appeal

Insurance Code section 1861.10 does not create a private right of action for a violation of Insurance Code section 1861.02, which was enacted as part of Proposition 103 and limits the factors that an insurer can consider in determining insurance rates.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/15/2006
• Published 03/15/2006

Judges

• CROSKEY, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Barger & Wolen, Steven H. Weinstein, Richard G. De La Mora, Marina M. Karvelas and Spencer Y. Kook, Los Angeles, for Petitioners., Heller Ehrman, Vanessa Wells and Victoria Collman Brown, Menlo Park, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners., Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, Drew E. Pomerance, Marina N. Vitek and Vincent S. Gannuscio, Woodland Hills;  Goshgarian & Marshall, Mark Goshgarian, Calabasas, and John A. Marshall, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest Douglas Ryan., Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, John J. Stoia, Jr., Theodore J. Pintar, Kevin K. Green, James D. McNamara, San Diego;  The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Harvey Rosenfield and Pamela M. Pressley for Real Party in Interest The Proposition 103 Enforcement Project.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David S. Chaney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mark P. Richelson and W. Dean Freeman, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Diane Spencer Shaw, Deputy Attorney General;  Gary Cohen, Elizabeth Mohr and Bryant W. Henley for the Department of Insurance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent.