*1 Dist., Oct. Div. Seven. 1997.] B110759.Second [No. Petitioner, YOSHIOKA,
DAVID COUNTY, Respondent; COURT OF LOS ANGELES THE SUPERIOR al., Interest. et Real Parties in GLENN ALAN TODD *5 Counsel
Holstein, & Unitt and C. Petitioner. Taylor Brian Unitt for *6 Remcho, Purcell, Johansen, Remcho, B. Kathleen Johansen & Robin Joseph on J. Purcell and M. as Amici Curiae behalf Petitioner. Gina Calabrese No for appearance Respondent. Lebowitz, &
Ford, Walker, Behar, Murchison & J. Maxine Haggerty in Interest. D. Newman for Real Parties Richard Gumming General, Cabatic, Leslie R. Lopez, Linda A. Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Horvitz & Levy, W. L. Shelleyanne Chang, Attorneys Deputy on behalf of Real B. as Amici Curiae Christina J. Imre and Jon Eisenberg Parties in Interest.
Opinion Yoshioka wishes to collect noneconomic
WOODS, Petitioner David J. in Todd Todd. He real interest Glenn Alan and Judith parties from which voters last November and by challenges Proposition (passed unconstitu- drivers from such collecting damages) uninsured prohibits in Amici curiae grounds. support tional on due and equal protection We rule. under California’s challenge single-subject further of petitioner muster on all three grounds withstands constitutional find that the initiative of mandate. must his for a writ deny petition and therefore Synopsis Factual and Procedural in interest David Yoshioka and real On July parties an accident. were involved in automobile Glenn Alan and Judith Todd Petitioner filed had no auto insurance at the time of the accident. Petitioner June, on for the of Los County Angeles his in the Court complaint Superior 14, 1995, and subsequently that he was rear-ended real parties alleging sustained serious injuries. 5, 1996, 76.83 percent
On 213 was passed by November California, section State California Civil Code creating the voters of the drunk drivers from uninsured motorists and 3333.4. This initiative prohibits of the arising operation in action out noneconomic collecting any Further, of any damages by use of a vehicle. it prohibits recovery motor (Civ. from flight felony. felons in the commission of or injuries caused Code, the elec- 3333.3.) The reveals numerous interests voter’s pamphlet § in such can Essentially torate this initiative. interests enacting considered into account: to two broad concerns the voters took narrowed down the interest interest in balance to our restoring justice system insurance. costs of automobile reducing mandatory arbitration, 8, 1996, On November the subject litigation proceeded trial de novo. The was filed a where an award made. Both parties request real Based on Proposition matter was set for trial on March 1997. of general damages to exclude all evidence a motion limine brought party motion in on Piatt granted and bar all instructions that issue. Judge jury was unconstitutional he refused to rule limine because that issue. review on its and looked for appellate retroactive application to add Further, to amend their answer he the real parties’ granted request *7 until May The trial was continued 213 as an affirmative defense. Proposition 27, 1997, writ to file his petition. to afford petitioner opportunity 2, on Subse- mandate 1997. April for writ of
Petitioner filed petition 5, 1997, to the writ. an real filed parties opposition on May quently, 16, in support Amici curiae of the petitioner on 1997. replied May Petitioner 27, Real answered on 1997. May brief on 1997. May parties filed a and the (the real General parties Attorney in of Amici curiae support filed June briefs on of Insurance Companies) California Association now this court of this initiative is before The constitutionality 1997. review.
Discussion and appli- that both the retroactive Petitioner contends prospective violates because initiative of 213 are unconstitutional Proposition cations (2) the federal under his due rights equal protection Further, this amici in contend petitioner Constitutions. curiae support state Ac- rule. is invalid because it violates California’s single-subject initiative economic and noneconomic wishes collect both cordingly, with from disagree suffered real interest. We injuries parties this either contentions that state initiative unconstitutional petitioner’s its retroactive form and prospective application.
I. Retroactive Application of Courts retroactive of initiatives generally addressing application (Gutierrez follow a v. De Lara 188 Cal.App.3d two-step analysis. First, 158].) the court must determine whether [234 so, if has been If the court must then decide retroactively applied. initiative intent, intended that the statute be so Upon finding people applied. or federal the initiative be enacted unless it is state by may prohibited Therefore, (Ibid.) retroactive constitutional we first look at the provisions. itself determine is constitutional. and then if its application application immediately “This act shall be effective provides: its the voters. Its shall to all actions upon adoption by provisions apply 1,1997” (Italics initial which the trial has not commenced to January prior added.) of secondary
This initiative to petitioner by was applied concept our is best defined Secondary Supreme retroactivity. retroactivity legal Court as consequences “[retroactivity which] faffect[s] future ” (1994) 8 Cal.4th (20th Century transactions.’ Ins. Co. Garamendi past court that this type 878 P.2d noted Cal.Rptr.2d laws, States United not itself including “does offend retroactivity any *8 980 (Id. 282.) in at Petitioner’s case p. Constitutions.”1
and California 213’s encom yet to occurring prior passage, an accident volves He with its effective date. filed following complaint a trial set passes 26, which occurred on 1994. July real for an accident court against parties 1996, 213, has him from in November of prevented passed set trial on March relief because this matter was for noneconomic seeking to in a retroactive 17, that the initiative It is clear applies 1997. manner. it will apply not state that
Since the initiative does expressly v. (Evangelatos we intent. must determine electorate’s retroactively, 629, P.2d (1988) 44 1212 753 Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [246 Court Superior 585]; (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d [230 Russell v. Court Superior to at the 102].) determine intent it best look In order to such (See itself. Feckenscher Gamble of the initiative language 885]; Court held that the Supreme where our [85 cause of of the accrual which at time applied measure amendment Civil Code due to the legislative action was inapplicable of damages.) section that measure governing was meant that a statute not is very strong Generally, presumption “[t]he a construction not receive such ought to act retrospectively, [wherein] [i]t clear, that no other words used so strong imperative unless the are them, the intention of the legislature can be annexed to or unless meaning Wells Co. (U.S. be Co. v. Struthers Fidelity cannot otherwise satisfied.” 537, 539, 52 L.Ed. U.S. words, shall to all Petitioner that the argues “provisions apply 1,1997” to January in which initial trial has not commencedprior actions that the voters wanted to give alternate susceptible are an interpretation if the their case to trial case was uninsured sufficient time to bring motorists Therefore, a clear intent to the electorate did not express already pending. informed voters who contends that the the statute He retroactively. apply backed would an incredibly adopt the court system up, understand which, out of those cases to the retroactive application exception coincidence, before January have a trial date luck or happen already mere Therefore, that such voters it to conclude illogical would 1997. voters, Further, the uninformed the statute retroactively. intended to apply those have may thought are of the civil litigation process, who unaware two time. within months cases could all be set trial pending Supreme phrase this because our that real in interest misuse parties 1 Petitioner contends However, classify type application we this merely use was whether Court’s of it dicta. conclu- “retroactivity,” analysis results in the same “secondary our retroactivity” simply analysis. phrase simplify our We sion. choose use *9 However, such an assuming alternative is interpretation possible upon examination of this fails particular phrase, petitioner to consider other sections of the initiative that a clear support retroactive finding intent. Real states, interest out that the parties point initiative specifically “A Yes vote on this measure means: Uninsured drivers or drivers convicted of under the influence of alcohol or at driving the time of an drugs accident could no sue someone who longer was at fault for the accident for non- (such economic losses pain suffering).” “ face, On its the words no in this context can longer” only interpreted as the initiative longer no noneconomic uninsured to sue for allowing contend, losses. As real in interest “no sue” does parties longer logically now, that one and a half or suggest two from when all cases filed years resolved, before the initiative are uninsured finally drivers could no longer sue for such relief. Nor does it that this initiative should imply only apply accidents that occur the effective date are post resolved. It finally merely states that uninsured motorists can no sue longer the effective following 1, 1997, January date. No express exists exception voters indicating intended to only initiative to accidents apply the effective occurring post date.
Moreover, it is to note that this section important is at the placed forefront of the voter where each pamphlet, a brief proposition given synopsis. effective date is hidden in portion small back in the print many pages “text of the law” proposed section. Petitioner out that points the voters “assuming even read the date], statement the effective it is highly [of possible But, confusion would result.” this the voter of excerpt what a informing entails, vote “yes” location, which is clear in its intent and visible in its would be a of even part Therefore, a casual a voter. reading by upon examination of this section of with those coupled referring date, to the effective it is clear that the electorate intended to adopt this initiative we must still retroactively. determine its Subsequently, constitutionality.
A. Due Process Petitioner contends that the retroactive application has violated his constitutional to due right We process. disagree. I,
Article section 7 of the California Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution of due guarantee right process. Retrospective of a application statute constitutional as as it long does not deprive a substantive person without due law. 39 Cal.3d (In Marriage re of Buol rights. (Davis due to vested Procedural process applies *10 818, (1977) 824 Cal.Rptr. 73 Superior Angeles Cal.App.3d [141 Court Los of 75].) courts have held that the to right Petitioner concedes that numerous is a vested because such right rights recover of not damages specific types from the Constitution. are created state and common law by independent (1985) v. 38 (See Group ibid. Fein Permanente Medical See examples, 137, 368, 665]; P.2d American Bank & Trust Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 159 695 [211 671, 683 Cal.3d (1984) Cal.Rptr. Co. v. 36 359 Community Hospital [204 670, 233]; etc. Newspapers Werner v. Southern Cal. P.2d 41 A.L.R.4th 825, 121, 252]; 13 Feckenscher v. 35 A.L.R.2d (1950) Cal.2d 129 [216 274, Gamble, 482, 499-500; Tranor 53 Cal. Tulley 12 v. supra, Therefore, Such alteration 280.) rights. a and its alter such may state people every is of very deprived when at the least only party is forbidden This method does just compensation. encompass reasonable securing of much he have would not recover as as would instances where the plaintiff Gamble, (Feckenscher 12 Cal.2d rule continued. had former 482, 499.) Act, which limits an injured
The New York Workmens’ Compensation in order to to for was general damages, upheld worker’s sue negligence (New and York employees. between encourage responsibilities employers R. Co. v. 243 U.S. 197-198 Central R. White [37 250-251, 667].) to recovery L.Ed. a lesser available Subsequently, despite act with due was still deemed consistent process injured employees, principles. Central, in New York under Proposition act
Analogous as he not be able to recover as award petitioner high damage, although may is he still entitled would have initiative’s passage, legally prior of a certain of some form of relief. Proposition deprives petitioner type i.e., (noneconomic, but cannot claim suffering), and damages pain just compensa- he is reasonable method of every securing deprived his damages. He able obtain for economic complete recovery tion. is still was to recover for Notably, assuming petitioner eligible pain award ever it is still whether such a will suffering, monetary questionable stated, “. . . Court has an Our injured Supreme fully compensate plaintiff. are at best compensation” pain money imperfect 137, 159.) 38 Cal.3d (Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, supra, suffering. are fully ever will often arise as to whether injured plaintiffs Suspicion However, we are certain that for noneconomic relief. compensated which can injuries will receive those complete compensation injured this relief is continually 213 ensures monetarily. Proposition measured available. initiative if a retroactive in determining
An analysis alternative (In factors. re variety of a weighing due entails violates 546 P.2d (1976) 16 Cal.3d Marriage Bouquet Marriage Bouquet that In re in interest contend Real parties However, an analysis proper, such bar. assuming distinct from the case at form. retroactive can still be in its upheld the significance court: factors are considered The following “[1] the state interest served by the *11 law, [2] the importance of the retroactive application of the law to the effectuation of that interest, [3] the extent of reliance upon the former law, [4] the legitimacy of that reliance, [5] the extent of actions taken on the basis of that reliance, and [6] the extent those ac- law would disrupt the retroactive of the new application which (16 592.) tions.”2 Cal.3d at p. state interest
1. The the significance of stated the voters’ in of real in interest Amici curiae support parties 2) 1) in balance to our system interests best: the interest restoring justice More in of automobile insurance. the interest costs reducing mandatory however, in balance to our justice system the interest restoring specifically lawsuits, of annual reducing includes such interests in the number decreasing the costs of court-related costs to state and local governments, increasing Law, Financial drunk California’s driving disobeying Responsibility commission of felonies and unreasonable curtailing damages being avoiding costs of mandatory awarded to the uninsured. The interest in reducing insurance automobile insurance addresses the need to reduce skyrocketing insurance. motorists to by encouraging buy liability premiums initiatives, mirrors that of important analysis, specific 2 It is to note that this to retroactive analysis, general analysis. process due since process substantive due For a substantive (Lochner test. pertains rights, apply we the rational basis 213 to economics would 539, 937].) (1905) York test entails that we find: v. New 45 L.Ed. This 198 U.S. 49 [25 (2) rationally (1) challenged legislation legitimate the initiative is has a state interest and the (9th 1985) (Hoffman States v. United Cir. 767 F.2d legitimate related to that state interest. 137, 157,158.) 1436-1437; Group, supra, 38 Cal.3d The Fein v. Permanente Medical upon infirmity statutory squarely scheme is demonstrating burden of the constitutional of (Anacker Cal.Rptr. Sillas 423 challenger. Cal.App.3d 65 [135 v. liberally statutory Proposition 213 are to be Purposes relationship and their to the scheme of (Legislature 816 P.2d v. Eu 54 Cal.3d 500-501 [286 construed. supra, Marriage Bouquet, that the if we find under In re 1309].) Ultimately 16 Cal.3d of important, and action significant, application to that interest initiative is the retroactive later, simultaneously of we is near identical to that taken on the basis of the former law clause. meet the rational basis test under the due crisis, In of the electorate’s interests the wake an insurance premium (See are American Bank & significant. costs of insurance controlling high 359; 36 Cal.3d United Hospital, Trust v. Community supra, Co. Hoffman Lines, 1431; States, v. San Pedro Inc. Steamship F.2d Western 263, 876 (1994) 8 Cal.4th Hospital Cal.Rptr.2d Peninsula (here- of Reform Act 1062], the Medical Compensation where Injury of economic inafter, MICRA) limiting recovery legislation Similar to was upheld.) contain the costs insurance malpractice order to had inter- 213’s a legitimate legislation, Proposition supporters the MICRA cost automobile insurance. controlling high est in significant. our is also justice system interest balance to restoring more Financial ignore makes it difficult citizens Law, to obtain insurance if required where motorists are Responsibility effect, are forced to wish drive. Once in law citizens abiding pay Therefore, it was the law. disobey proper those who choose injuries consider such an interest in a new initiative.3 enacting for the electorate to to the the retroactive the law importance application 2. The interest *12 effectuation of Further, is in both these important effectuating retroactive application legislation, out retrospective aspects interests. Petitioner points “[t]he must meet the test of due and the as well as the aspects, process, prospective former.” (Usery for the latter not suffice for the Turner may justifications 2893, 2882, (1976) 428 49 L.Ed.2d Mining Elkhorn Co. U.S. First, in insurance rates can be through the interest decreasing justified con- by both and retroactive Petitioner disagrees prospective application.4 for that insurance will not decrease voters who premiums already tending have The formula for is based computed liability coverage. setting premiums record, on relative to the insured driver such as number driving factors These remain the miles traveled and number of factors years experience. Therefore, all same of whether drivers insurance not. regardless buy if companies rates will not Further the rates even increase may change. were formerly covered a lot of drivers who uninsured. high-risk However, asserts, insurance will as an there experienced agent is no once the insured longer beneficial on insurance impact premiums prospective significant viewing are when the initiative in its equally 3 These interests form. Proposition interest due when 4 Petitioner does not contend that such an violates 213 is in its prospective examined form. This effect however cannot be forced to for the uninsured’s bills. pay initiative is For an retroactively. example, achieved unless the applied underwriter, automobile insurance following passage Proposition in who is rates for could take into account the reduction setting or her insured in those cases in which potential his exposure company’s This will ensure the initiative’s immediate effect. Proposition applies. However, if continue the insured will to face applied retroactively, in claims uninsured exposure general damages brought by plaintiffs, the beneficial effect on insurance ultimately delaying rates. There- liability fore, retroactive this interest in application important effectuating rates. reducing premium
Second, the interest in balance to our restoring justice system clearly effectuated this initiative’s and retroactive through prospective application.5 fact, In the interest cannot be effectuated unless the initiative is applied The court will not until we consider all cases retroactively. system change scheduled which must include certain accidents that occurred post January result, to this date. As a concedes that a decrease in prior judg- ments would result response 213’s passage. Litigation will decrease as cases general will more result in settlement. Tax- likely law paying, citizens will no need to abiding longer those who choose support to break the law. the costs of the court Subsequently, will supporting system Further, decrease. the initiative applying ensures an even retroactively Law, incentive greater with comply California’s Financial Responsibility a law that even absent should be followed all drivers. 3. Reliance
Reliance the state of the former law is not a viable upon argument. Actions taken on the basis of the state the former law should be identical to those taken in to the new law. Petitioner that response retroactive alleges of initiatives are applications disfavored and unfair generally inherently because (See no notice to those later affect. Borden they give v. Division (1994) Medical 30 880 Quality Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d [35 Court, 905]; 810, 814; Russell v. 185 Superior supra, Evangela- Cal.App.3d Court, Cal.3d, 1180, 1188.) tos v. 44 Superior supra, portion Proposition 5 It is clear that if found that the retroactive 213 effectuates an restoring justice system, interest in prospective application. balance to our so too does its 986 drafted,
However, 213 was even the State of Proposition before long insurance.6 The law drivers to always required purchase California had minimum Law was constitutional as Financial held Responsibility early Sillas, 416.) Real v. interest (Anacker supra, Cal.App.3d parties 1976. noted, accident “involvement the does that Anacker the court out point it the merely provides to be financially responsible, not create the obligation been satisfied.” that has obligation demonstrating preexisting occasion accident, Therefore, he cannot 422.) (Id. petitioner’s at the time p. at not have did insurance driving that he no notice that without contend had 213 retroac- any negative consequences. Subsequently, applying be unfair. cannot deemed tively inherently
B. Protection Equal retroactively that
Petitioner contends applying under the protection it violates his to equal unconstitutional because disagree. and United States Constitutions. We California initiative our solemn duty jealously guard precious “[I]t exercise. . . . doubts in favor its and resolve reasonable any power, [Sjuch unconstitutionality clearly, unless their measures must upheld Eu, 54 Cal.3d at and v. unmistakably appears.” (Legislature supra, positively added.) italics p. receive like that situated similarly
Equal protection requires persons (1981) Inc. Court (Georgie Manufacturing, Superior treatment. Boy 382].) When a statute or initiative Cal.App.3d economic rights, individuals in a manner which involves classifies if: has a legitimate basis test The test is met statute rational applies.7 believed the classification would the lawmakers reasonably purpose States, 161 F.2d supra, that v. United (Hoffman promote purpose. the court must conduct 1436.) Petitioner out and we agree points into between correspondence serious and genuine judicial inquiry we are invoking only classification even if legislative goals (Fein Medical Group, rational test. v. Permanente relationship *14 137, 163.) Cal.3d Vehicle Code 16021. 6 See section scrutiny analysis why inappli go through lengthy strict parties interest 7 Real However, challenges that type long it has been established cable to this classification. York, (Lochner supra, v. New 198 U.S. rights are the rational basis test. economic afforded (American damages. 45.) restricting recovery of rights Such economic include statutes Further, 359, 368-369.) Hospital, Community supra, 36
Bank & Trust Co. v. standard of review. appropriate concedes that rational basis is the
987 However, not found under the violations are generally equal protection “ ‘classification rests on grounds wholly test unless the rational relationship ” v. United (Hoffman of the State’s objective.’ to the achievement irrelevant “ States, 1431, 1435.) is not The therefore question ‘[wheth 767 F.2d supra, . . . whether] legislative objectives] [but the Act will promote er in [the fact . . might . [do have decided rationally [it] ... could Legislature 36 Cal.3d supra, (American CommunityHospital, Bank & Trust Co. v. so].” U.S. 374, Co. 449 359, Creamery Minnesota v. Clover quoting Leaf such 715, 725, burden to 456, 659].) prove 66 L.Ed.2d 1431, States, F.2d supra, United v. (Hoffman rests upon challenger. 1437.)8 State interests
1. interest As discussed in the due above voters’ process analysis This includes nar- balance to our restoring justice system legitimate. Financial Re- rower interests with California’s encouraging compliance Law, the frustration of sponsibility avoiding empty judgments prevent- individuals who fail to take from unreasonable ing seeking responsibility Sillas, (See damages. supra, Anacker v. where Cal.App.3d of one’s was related to the suspension driving privilege rationally goal financial Inc. v. assuring Georgie Boy Manufacturing, Supe- responsibility; Court, 217, 225, rior fn. where supra, Cal.App.3d eliminating puni- tive for those under statutes is a damages only plaintiffs suing survivorship manner of concern for the legitimate addressing “apparent danger recoveries.”) excessive
Further, the interest in costs of automobile insurance reducing mandatory (Fein is well established as v. Permanente Medical legitimate. Group, 38 Cal.3d the court held that the costs of insured reducing [where motor vehicle accident defendants and their insurers is a legitimate objective].)
2. Classification uninsured, Petitioner contends that within the classification of the general 213’s creates subclasses that are retroactive further application (See Lesher Commu- subject analysis 8 Initiatives are to the same constitutional as statutes. nications, City Inc. Walnut Creek 802 P.2d 52 Cal.3d 540 [277 *15 (1) as: the these subclasses retro- Petitioner labels arbitrary.9 and irrational the to who didn’t have opportunity uninsured motorists active plaintiffs; few; with trials between the (2) The fortunate persons avoid penalties; 1, 1997, ill and who suffer no affect and January of the initiative passage after occurring motorists with accidents uninsured prospective plaintiffs; January 1997. Civil Code plaintiffs challenging
A similar was made by contention MICRA, in medical damages which limits noneconomic section of 3333.2 $250,000. violated that the statute cases to Plaintiffs argued malpractice class of within the it discriminates because equal impermissibly protection victims, a of recovery damages denying “complete” medical malpractice exceeding damages with noneconomic malpractice plaintiffs to those only $250,000. at (Fein pp. Medical Group, supra v. Permanente However, 161-162.) unavailing Court found this argument our Supreme the does not require Legis- clause protection certainly because equal “[t]he or lost medical to limit a victim’s for recovery out-of-pocket expenses lature limit on it has it some place because found appropriate earnings simply (Id. similar non-economic losses.” at suffering p. and damages pain added.) italics Further, the Ninth Circuit where a by the MICRA was legislation upheld victims and of treatment between unequal malpractice plaintiff complained States, 1431, 1433.) In 767 F.2d (Hoffman other tort victims. United case, an into medical attention for seeking went the hospital plaintiff If Mr. left as a Hoffman had but injured finger, hospital “vegetable.” floor suffered brain hospital subsequently on the slip happened not have MICRA would damages cap applied. noneconomic damage, classifications, it not arbitrary to the MICRA Analogous legislation’s uninsured who are for the electorate to draw distinction between the set trial. Those who plaintiffs affected different dates malpractice $250,000 were not than afforded suffer happened injuries greater importance addressing malprac- noneconomic because tice these uninsured who plaintiffs happened insurance crisis. Subsequently, 1, 1997, set should not be afforded non- to have trial dates post-January auto outrageous economic in furtherance of interest lowering premiums. insurance
Further, it is that the uninsured motorists provisions note important not in with the financial responsi- to those who are only compliance apply victims, This is from malpractice laws statute. distinct required by bility 865], re older to In Fassett an case Cal.App.2d 9 Petitioner cites ranch, hog city’s limiting hogs that could be raised on where a ordinance number year, deemed an persons less than one was applying to those who were business irrational classification.
989 fault of their own to a on the subject who no are noneconomic through cap wish to collect. contentions that these they Despite petitioner’s of the it arbitrary, indisputable three uninsured are that all subclasses subclasses are the law and therefore are all violating members of the form of to some susceptible penalty.
II. 213 Prospective Application Proposition of
A. Due Process10 Procedural
Amici curiae contend when support that applied 213 due Proposition violates because initiative prospectively, process scheme, an automatic for no implements penalty allowing explanations (Bearden (1983) excuses. v. 461 U.S. Georgia 668-669 [103 2070-2071, 221]; 76 L.Ed.2d Rios v. 7 792 [103 Cozens 979].) Cal.Rptr.
However, both these cases cited amici curiae are distinct from the Rios, situation at In hand. Court of California struck down a Supreme Vehicle Code which for an uninsured’s automatic provision provided license when involved in an suspension automobile court accident. The found due process uninsured motorist be to required given a determine his hearing potential culpability prior of his license. suspension
Due does not that the uninsured be a require before given hearing denied for being recovery noneconomic because potential culpabil- lines, is not ity at issue. such Along the First District Court held Appeal 12520.5, that Vehicle Code former section which for the automatic provides revocation of farm labor vehicle driver certificates a drunk upon driving Code, (Veh. violation former (a)), subd. did require not hearing § determine potential because it had culpability been done already criminal underlying (Alderette for drunk prosecution driving. Department Motor Vehicles Cal.App.3d 213 does Similarly, for Drivers Proposition put culpability up dispute. either insurance or do If possess not. do not and choose to they they (instead drive other modes using alternative like transportation public transit), we can think of no defense that justifiable would require hearing. Bearden,
Petitioner cites also where the court held sentencing “[a] court cannot revoke a defendant’s a fine properly probation failure pay process analysis 10 Muchof the due prospective analogous 213 in its form is (see A., ante). to that of pt. analysis in its retroactive I. will form This address aspect specific prospective those issues to the of the initiative. *17 for the that he was somehow findings responsible evidence of . . . absent meet the forms of were to punishment inadequate alternative failure that (Bearden 461 U.S. Georgia, supra, in . v. . . deterrence.” State’s interests There, the was sentenced to However, his following he various fines. the condition that pay on probation sentence, to on time. and was unable make payments he lost his job Bearden, In from the case at bar.
This is easily distinguishable case if was automatically implemented revocation penalty probation petitioner’s Therefore, he to be heard so that good was entitled fines were his paid. Here, mo- at could be considered. uninsured earning money faith attempts entitled drive avoid of not easily being that choose to can penalty torists forms of transpor- alternative by simply choosing to noneconomic damages, Further, at all faith or (good if the uninsureds made any attempt tation. insurance, to such otherwise) subject would in fact no longer to buy Therefore, each uninsured driver we see no reason to entitle a penalty. find no due violation. We hearing. Equal
B. Protection ante, violation for classifications
As discussed an equal protection met The test is if: invokes the rational basis test. involving rights economic (2) (1) has a and the lawmakers legitimate purpose reasonably the statute that v. United (Hoffman believed the classification would promote purpose. States, 1431.) (1) to our restoring justice 767 F.2d Interests balance supra, legit- insurance are (2) mandatory costs of automobile reducing system Process, I.B., Protection, I.A., ante.) (See Equal imate. Due and pt. pt. Therefore, classification of we address the rational between relationship and these interests. legitimate uninsured noted,
As the uninsured motorist classification rationally previously to our restoring justice related to the electorate’s interests in balance auto costs of insurance. reducing system the uninsured has been well established Classifying by eliminating (See related to costs of insurance rationally high premiums. reducing supra, & Co. Community Hospital, American Bank Trust 372-373; 137, 158-159; Medical 38 Cal.3d Group, Fein v. Permanente supra, States, 1437.) The electorate v. United 767 F.2d Hoffman that noneconomic uninsured eliminating concluded rationally As insurance costs. a result goal reducing drivers related to the uninsured, insurance costs were eliminating predicted classifying by decrease due to the decreased amount of settlement and verdict payments The ballot affect insurance premiums. pamphlet specified that directly that 213 will result in a tax Analyst’s prediction Legislative $5 million on the based 2.35 nearly annually, percent revenue reduction Amici curiae for real interest parties tax on insurers’ gross premiums. indicate income to insurers— that these reduced annual figures further report Further, is, $200 to insureds—of some million. reduced premiums their automobile of Insurance has ordered all insurers to reduce Department In these considering 213. insurance rates liability response *18 results, that classifying for voters to have assumed it can be irrational hardly to reduce the uninsured would help premium prices.
Further, our is related to balance to restoring this classification rationally Court fee as consti- The upheld filing requirements justice system. Supreme (1973) 410 (Ortwein under v. Schwab tutional equal protection principles. 572].) U.S. 656 35 L.Ed.2d such fees directly Despite [93 one’s in civil because fees assisted affecting participate litigation, the court were deemed related offsetting system’s they rationally expenses, (id. 1174-1175].) at S.Ct. at restoring justice, p. pp. [93 Similarly, amount of for noneconomic eliminating recovery related to to our because it rationally restoring balance justice system results in a decrease in the amount of Since would litigation filed. recovery (an limited to be verifiable amount that special damages easily encompasses little matters will in settlement. This dispute), pending result will likely reduce the cost of ultimately the court supporting system.
Further, as more uninsured drivers to auto encourages buy insurance, and law citizens will no tax-paying abiding longer required the burden of for those citizens that choose to carry paying directly defy current state of the law. It was rational for the electorate to believe that a classification that eliminates the uninsured would achieve inter- legitimate est in balance to our restoring justice system.
Petitioner cites cases where a classifications were legislature’s particular However, held irrational and therefore violated the clause. equal protection such cases are distinct from the case at bar. Merlo,
Petitioner cites to
one of a series of cases (including Cooper
604])
582 P.2d
that strikes
(1978)
Amici curiae
contend
support
petitioner
rule.
Arti-
is unconstitutional because it violates the single-subject
8,
II,
“An
Constitution
initiative
cle
section
of
California
provides,
submitted to the
more than one
be
subject
measure embracing
may
Const.,
II,
(d).)
8
An initiative
(Cal.
have
effect.”
art.
subd.
electors or
any
§
germane”
as
are
long
“reasonably
will
its
generally
upheld
parts
Amador
Joint Union
(See
High
and to its
Valley
each other
general purpose.
208,
Bd.
22 Cal.3d
229
Equalization
v. State
[149
Sch. Dist.
239,
1281];
(1987)
Confusion has often been held to result when an initiative presents of excessive such as welfare” or topic generality “public “government.” (See Brosnahan v. Brown 32 Cal. 3d Cal.Rptr. [186 274]; 1078, 1098-1101.) Harbor v. 43 Cal.3d Deukmeijan, supra, Amici curiae in contend that 213’s support Proposition is “Personal which and broad is too subject Responsibility,” general topic to survive this rule’s constraints. Further assert particular provi- sions of the measure could have even a narrower subject confused voters on sanctioning who caused irresponsible people injuries.
However, 213 makes is to limit it clear that its primary subject of noneconomic for those drivers that break the law. As recovery out, real this can be best described as one unified parties point topic subject drivers, three drunk uninsured drivers and drivers in having integrated parts: commission of or from a The three of this are fleeing felony. subparts topic generally germane to the electorate’s interests of balance to our restoring justice insurance system lowering premiums.
This rationale follows our Court’s decision Supreme on which held that its “relate to the cost of provisions insurance or the generally thereof, and all. . . at regulation least will to achieve the arguably help goal insurance more making affordable and available.” (Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian(1989) 48 Cal.3d 771 P.2d Further, article XIII A of the California Constitution withstood a single- rule subject since its four challenge, elements still separate constituted which were provisions reasonably necessary to *20 function of the integrated statute as a (Amador whole. Joint Union Valley Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. High Equalization, 208.)
Ultimately, prohibiting recovery noneconomic for uninsured drivers, drunk drivers and drivers in the commission of or from a fleeing felony reasonably to achieve the necessary statute’s functions. We cannot find violation of any the single-subject rule and the initiative uphold as constitutional.
Disposition The for a writ of mandate is denied. Real in interest are petition parties awarded costs on appeal. J.,
Neal, concurred. JOHNSON, P. Acting dissent. Because I conclude Civil I respectfully J.— Code section 3333.4 cannot be to bar applied retroactively petitioner’s I find to issues it consider other damages, unnecessary nonpecuniary to in the majority opinion. addressed clause contains a Proposition
As in the majority opinion, discussed filed for noneconomic terminate claims ongoing which to purports trial within unless came to actually passage before the proposition’s this The case before date and 1997. months between that January two but, in Los as is typical It filed in 1995 in this was category. court falls In view my as of the first 1997. day trial commenced yet had Angeles, is both ambiguous Proposition this attempted retroactivity provision for unconstitutional, of this proposition whatever the constitutionality and lawsuits filed after 1997. January Nonpecuniary Is as Whether It Bars
I. The So Ambiguous Its Those Passage Cases First Filed Damage Awards After 1,1997, It January Trial That Filed Had Not Reached Already Which Chose to Be Electorate Voting Majority Cannot Presumed New Law Make the Retroactive. date”
In “Section 4. Effective the second sentence of labeled paragraph in which the shall to all actions provisions apply states “[i]ts In an 1997.” effort January initial trial has not commenced prior sentence, in this any majority opinion argue away ambiguity particular in the language and more sentence contained prominent earlier points clarifies the contend this section My colleagues ballot statement. view, however, In the earlier retroactive nature of this enactment. my clause more creates and not That prominent ambiguity clarity. sentence drivers . . . could no reads: “A Yes vote on this measure means: Uninsured was at fault for the accident for non-economic longer sue someone who (such of “no losses common meaning longer pain suffering).” no losses” not that no sue” “can a claim for non-economic you longer file losses which has can lawsuit for noneconomic longer already complete turn, no means “cannot after the been filed. The “can longer,” phrase *21 the was becomes law.” in the ballot statement voter Accordingly, proposition law one file told that after the becomes no will able to being proposition claima for noneconomic losses. the in
There is no the conclusion two sentences—one the ballot escaping the really far more read and them what telling proposition statement voters at end of the itself which few means and the other sentence the proposition bars new claims only voters read—are inconsistent. One says proposition it in and the other bars such claims even says nonpecuniary are to trial The unless 1997. brought by January ongoing'lawsuits they turn, sentences, as to what the proposition in create an ambiguity conflicting result, initiative package to the words of this say it is difficult As a means. clear, other can be annexed to meaning that no and strong imperative are “so on the of the voters to part apply to an intent impute them" as is required Wells Co. (U.S. Co. Struthers Fidelity such legislation retroactively. 52 L.Ed. 209 U.S. 314 the ballot statement failed to alert the simply This is not a case where most, itself, an unusual provision contained contrary voter the initiative the ballot statement filed Here litigation. it retroactive as to already making on that a false impression or at a minimum creates misinformation conveys the initiative ballot statement says very question. proponent’s Meanwhile, of future claims for nonpecuniary damages. the filing prevents it retroac- initiative is a sentence single purporting apply hidden of this nature. It is entirely possible and thus also eliminate claims tively past careless in the ballot drafting of this were proposition merely proponents this erroneous about what language creating impression prop- statement if for one kind of voting osition would do. But the electorate is told are lan- in a ballot statement and the contains contrary provision proposition sensitive as as to issues as vital and constitutionally guage, especially role as the initiative no can fulfill its important retroactivity, process longer Instead it will be to misuse as the ultimate will. expression popular open and counterfeit an instrument for the electorate confusing expres- producing Thus, in order to sions of choices. voting public’s protect preserve of the initiative the courts must be ever integrity vigilant against the kind of between ballot statement and language inconsistency proposition found in this case. Retroactive,
II. Is Intended to Be It Assuming Clearly Retroactively Would Be Unconstitutional to Terminate Petitioner’s Vested Right.
In the of California’s under the common law nearly years history, that, for centuries before all was have been people injured for all the entitled “the amount which will compensate (or or detriment caused” them another’s reckless negligent proximately intentional) act.1 all that for those unable changed (as and fleeing auto insurance well as drunk drivers unwilling buy liability statutory expression law is found Civil Code section 1 Thecurrent this common contract, arising originally obligation breach of an from enacted in 1872. “For the compensate for all the detriment damages, the measure of ... is the amount which will *22 Code, (Civ. or not.” thereby, anticipated it could have been proximately caused whether § 3333.) 996 detriment
felons), them any “non-pecuniary” denying compensation criminal) of acts wrongful (including suffer as victims another’s might Code, 3333.4, (Civ. a subd. out use of vehicle. operation of the arising § (a)(2)-(3).) the recover right
This in the law took away long-standing change for over of California’s motorists2 and one-quarter nonpecuniary those in Los millions of County3—literally people. over one-third of Angeles intent, of the voters’ Proposition the Accepting majority’s interpretation not in the initial trial has 213’s “shall to all actions which changes apply Thus, 1, in millions included the 1997.” commenced prior January had subset of uninsured motorists who 213 embraces a small accidents in the occurring period suffered their in vehicle injuries 213 but filed before the who had lawsuits before voters passed For people, date included claims for these nonpecuniary damages. that few. Petitioner one of this unfortunate change applies retroactively. of which Due does not retroactive a law permit process application vested) mere (or a to a right” opposed of “substantive deprives person (1923) (Roberts v. Wehmeyer in violation of due right” process. “procedural 751, 601, 22]; (1985) re 39 Cal.3d Marriage Cal. 612 P. In 191 [218 of Buol 31, 354]; (1952) Los 705 Wexler v. City Angeles 756 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [218 of 868], on in 110 Cal. 747 P.2d another distinguished point App.2d [243 697]; (1942) Coombes v. Leupe Leupe [130 Getz “A L.Ed. As Witkin U.S. 434 explains: [52 . law is or retroactive law is not invalid as such . . Such a retrospective [f] invalid, however, ... if it of a vested or substan- deprives person Witkin, (7 due process.” Summary such tially impairs right, denying thereby Law, 486, 675.) 1988) Cal. Law ed. But (9th deciding of Constitutional p. § of balancing whether offends due also retroactivity process requires law several “In whether a retroactive contravenes the factors. determining clause, due we consider such factors as the of the state significance law, of the retroactive of interest served importance application interest, of of reliance the law the effectuation that extent upon law, reliance, on the former of that the extent of actions taken the legitimacy reliance, and the to which retroactive basis of extent application (In law re Marriage Bouquet the new would those actions.” disrupt 1371], 546 P.2d clarified holding 16 Cal.3d Bureau, Analysis Report Commissioner’s Department 2 California Insurance Statistical (Feb. 1995) reported percent page The bureau 27.75 on Underserved Communities at CA-1. registered of vehicles in California were uninsured 1995. Bureau, Analysis Report Statistical Commissioner’s Department 3 California Insurance Communities, reported percent page LA-7. The bureau 37.11 on Underserved at registered Angeles County vehicles in Los were uninsured 1995.
997 1208-1209 [246 Court Superior Evangelatos enactments should legislative presume 585] [courts Cal.Rptr. only respectively]). be applied should new Civil Code of sort an about what just
I with begin inquiry 3333.4 eliminates. section Entitled Right aIs Vested “Non-Pecuniary” Damages The Right
III. Deprivation. From Retrospective to Protection repre- damages as “non-pecuniary” What 213 characterizes when it can do is the best the of what has decided entirety society sents The being. or his or her very to his her personhood, someone suffers injury rest, the money injured the damages just replace the so-called “pecuniary” or her—chiefly lost of what the did him because guilty party party is unable to earn to be and the wages injured party bills hospital paid writhes in for months or while But if the person pain recuperating. injured ward, a or into a is or loses limb turned bum or blinded years even becomes a human most of his intellect or or loses quadriplegic, or of a thousand other because of brain suffers damage, any “vegetable” horrors, or worse—“non-pecuni- of another’s negligence because personal of harm. any recourse available this ary” damages provide held Legisla which some courts have statutory Unlike the “benefits” (Graczyk v. offending can take without due away retroactively ture Bd. Comp.Appeals Cal.App.3d Workers’ 1245]), to obtain injured compensation 58 A.L.R.4th an chance party’s neither a injury from that caused is injuries party nonpecuniary that not a “benefit” and one nor It is a statutory origin. “right” “benefit” law. one treatise fundamental tenet of the common As leading explains: law that of “The cardinal of Anglo-American principle breach for the defendant’s of plaintiff by caused compensation injury . . . duty. is that of The notion repairing
“What then is primary compensation? be done may whole as as that nearly him making injury plaintiff’s to the be commensurate injury award of money. ‘remedy an [should] is liable in an to another does injury sustained.’ ‘[W]hoever ” (2d ed. The Law Torts (4 James & Gray, Harper, extent injury.’ 490, 493, omitted.) Cases, 25.1, fns. 1986) in Accident pp. Damages § or these kind pain this It is often said cannot money truly compensate with “non- away for doing But this is not kinds losses. justification an undeniable states simply Rather the observation damages. pecuniary” *24 the of limb or not substitute for loss a its adequate is an Money truth. least best—we can do.4 is the it is the at the just only—or “[I]t equivalent; a between the amount of the law to attain at least ‘rough correspondence aim of the or other intangible and the extent damages suffering,’ awarded Torts, (4 Damages & The Law of in loss.” James Harper, Gray, Cases, 25.1, omitted.) fn. Accident p. § to “non-economic” dam- There is an economic dimension so-called also has ob- law economics Richard Posner expert Judge As noted and ages. served, that pain law who believe “We with those students of tort disagree items of not allowable are not real costs and should and suffering in one and most a tort suit. No likes and pain suffering people damages not to be free of them. If were they a deal of pay good money would tortfea- the cost of would be less to the damages, negligence recoverable accidents, more more more and pain sors and there would be negligence, (7th 1987) costs.” v. U.S. Cir. (Kwasny and hence social suffering, higher 194, 197.) 823 F.2d of states the Legislature relies on a line cases which majority opinion or a on without “cap” damages reduce retroactively damages place may ante, 988.) the at But (Maj. opn. p. afoul of constitution.
running It of for recovery any does far than that. eliminates compensation more accidents, is, that a vehicle class of suffer major injuries people typically for moments or to the endure injuries person—the pain suffering the lost the emotional distress years, disfigurement, enjoy- accompanying as a and increased of to live life having paraplegic, ment aggravation No, a on com- this does not establish merely cap like injuries. proposition real eliminates such compensation for these it pensation very injuries; effect, will the to your In it we continue to for entirely. pay you damage says bills and lost income—but not the interests—your medical property view, right compensation damage In damage your person. my may accompany not losses which merely the person—and property and a right.” so-called a “substantive “vested “personal injury”—is right” of not an or a or a reduction cap The loss such is right merely adjustment but the total elimination the amount damages, species and mere to our status as human bill closely beings most related and workhorses. payers enacted 213 retains their own
That the which voting majority losses, from while it for these taking away right compensation may gained psychic some eye eye,” era of “an for an the victim have 4 In the barbarous revenged injury separating family lost limb or other compensation when his his one of by inflicting pain person. on But from own or the same assailant his limb system legal itself is to system monetary compensation and the primary functions personal the violence of orderly money perpetrator to victim for substitute an transfer of from physical revenge. serves to underscore the third of the population, unfortunate quarter it can be denied prospec- on this right. Assuming value most people place which cannot right indeed fundamental this the sort of substantive tively, away retroactively. be taken injuries for his past nonpecuniary to recover
Petitioner’s *25 with such his action for sense. He had filed “vested” another also So it was not or passed. 213 was proposed court before long the but full-blown a of compensation, or an right expectancy mere inchoate on with disfavor law looks special chose in action appellant possessed. for rights ongoing substantive to retroactively change statutes which purport 740, 747 (Wexler Cal.App.2d Los City Angeles, litigation. of for child’s death in action father [statutory making necessary party change lawsuit]; v Electric Morris not to mother’s retroactively does apply Pacific to on entitled old rely Co. Ry. [defendant 276] se contributory negli- statute limit violation per making plaintiff’s speed not lawsuit commenced could be since new statute enacted after gence defense].) If are to defendant of this defendants applied retroactively deprive them, to were filed entitled retain defenses when lawsuits existing against to be entitled to retain the certainly right damages existing should plaintiffs when filed their lawsuits. they Balance,
IV. On Retroactive Civil Code Section 3333.4 Application of Harms Uninsured Who Have Filed Cases More Than It Already Plaintiffs Legitimate Furthers the Goals Legislation. the is this to those who only great importance Not “vested” and of right before but on enactment of sought nonpecuniary this and balance retroactive harms like right petitioner persons deprivation First, than more it furthers the of the goals assuming only proposition. 3333.4, Code rates will Civil section insurance prospective application go as would if filed already down much as as by nearly nearly quickly to were not allowed to trial. proceed claims nonpecuniary damages collected on the uninsured already assumption Insurance rates were set there would So not receiving damages. motorists would still be nonpecuniary The relatively be immediate reduction in insurance premiums anyway. any not motorists will affect small tail of filed cases uninsured already involving of such to thousands many future the premiums substantially compared act. at all date which will not be filed after effective claims And, be there will only just again prospective application, assuming if the our as there would a decrease uninsured motorists on great highways to right A law were enforced retroactive retroactively. deprivation to not to comes too late affect decisions past nonpecuniary damages recover 3333.4 is to encourage If Civil Code section obtain insurance. automobile not those that do from discourage to auto insurance or to more drivers obtain cars, do after its enactment. their it can so using balance, unfair it is fundamentally how On other side of consider to of this substantive compensated retroactively to deprive in the It unfair sense his his interests. just property to person injury asway his behavior in such adjust know and he lacked opportunity was risk of without driving Had known this to avoid this loss. he insurance, his those pay he have been able adjust budget enough may Or, not to drive and instead he have elected may alternatively, premiums.5 But time at the peti- some alternative means of transportation. worked out other necessi- insurance instead of buy tioner was whether auto deciding *26 to right no to fear he would lose his long-standing ties he had reason well as He made that for to his as his property. compensation injuries person this away long-standing Civil section 3333.4 took choice before Code years to his car without true he decided drive own The same is when right. He these irre- made transportation. instead of alternative seeking insurance serious as the nearly before carried as they consequences vocable decisions if to injuries petitioner’s person seek for right loss of the to compensation was his driving him while he vehicle. injured someone unfair because fundamentally Retroactive also application made settlement calcula- filed this case for over a litigated year—and his to dam- other decisions—in reliance on entitlement tions and litigation know, on For he have insisted may for to his all we injury person. ages or he would have accepted demands he not have made offers rejected would he this crucial form of the course of the had known litigation during Thus, “legitimate would be to him. petitioner’s available in favor of needless retroac- ... are expectations substantially disregarded 751, 763.) Cal.3d (In of Buol, supra, re 39 tivity.” Marriage may option. The many if not be a viable California 5 For not most uninsured drivers this poverty and the Department reports direct and dramatic correlation between Insurance a County, Angeles coverage. especially in Los where This is acute absence of auto insurance (Cal. Dept. of average premium in Northern California. auto insurance is double that Bureau, (1996) Survey Executive Sum Analysis Premium Insurance Statistical Automobile instance, 2.) premium For mary, Sadly, high often are the areas. p. the low-income areas also (90044) a premium found Angeles analysts in one code in Los zip South Central $2,321 minimum no on his her liability year points driver who had or policy was a for a safe Thus, (Ibid.) $7299. even average zip code was per capita Yet the income in that same record. would have to typical living in who to drive an insured vehicle safe drivers that area wished any percent 67.89 policy. a Is it wonder pay a of their annual income to obtain minimal third Analysis (Cal. Dept, of Insurance Statistical zip of vehicles in that code are uninsured? Communities, supra, LA-2.) Bureau, Report p. at Underserved Commissioner’s on And, time was so short it was not it is unfair because the frame finally, through to situated similarly may his case trial. Yet others bring feasible to or a kind have judge or fortune or different good geography chance pure 31, 1996, and thus saved able to commence their trials December by been “If the statute the person. to to injuries their substantive right so short a time cut within remedy, to off existing immediately operates then his remedy, exercise to no reasonable give party opportunity as (Rose- party.” such of it is unconstitutional application the retroactive 120, 122-123 (1935) Court Superior [47 Co. v. Packing field 716]; 297 [236 Court Superior Cal.App.3d Aronson retroactively So-called can changes” ordinarily imposed “procedural Witkin, Law, (7 Cal. offending process. Summary without due Law, 682.) must allow those But even such changes Constitutional p. § Legis- affected a reasonable time to their substantive protect rights. “[T]he cannot, off at remedy.” a cut all change procedure, lature purported {Id. Lane U.S. 268 inter alia v. Wilson p. citing § 1281], it was to enact a statute giving L.Ed. unconstitutional holding or lose their period African-Americans 12-day register when fail vote.) If retroactive are unconstitutional procedural changes fortiori, time to substantive retroactive to allow sufficient protect rights, *27 affected in substantive law are unconstitutional if those they provide changes time save rights. an their existing inadequate reasons, court to I issue the writ the trial require For these would view, In the two my admit evidence and instruct on nonpecuniary damages. conflict between ballot statement of constitutional infirmity problems unfairness under- and initiative reinforce each other. The obvious language of voters know- majority that makes more doubtful a infirmity it still lying So it even more chose to the rules ongoing litigation. ingly change alone. retroactivity ground reasonable to 213 of its on strip Proposition it less renders ambiguous message the initiative Simultaneously, package’s unconstitu- a decision rule the attempted retroactivity provision likely true intent. tional would contravene electorate’s 18, 1997, was to read as printed November modified opinion On above.