How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Business News
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
If adopted, this would be the first major change to the use of so-called “affinity group” discounts since California voters approved Proposition 103 in 1988, outlawing “redlining” and other forms of discrimination in insurance.
The department drafted the new regulations after Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara ordered the first-ever investigation of group discounts in the Department’s history.
A survey of insured vehicles found that one-quarter of Californians receive an affinity group premium reduction ranging from 1.5 percent to 25.9 percent depending on the insurer and group.
The data shows that participation in group discount programs decreases with income and education level, with those living in ZIP Codes with average income above $49,000 more than twice as likely to receive discounts as those in ZIP Codes with average income of $22,500 or below. In some areas of Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Bay Area, participation in group discount programs in high-income ZIP Codes was three to four times higher.
“The department’s historic investigation found that many insurance companies were effectively using group discounts to ‘cherry-pick’ members, giving some higher-income occupations a ‘fast pass’ while people of color and lower income motorists were left in the slow lane,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. “Thirty years ago, California voters banned ‘redlining’ practices that often meant the poorer you were, the more you paid for car insurance. We need a major course correction. These new rules of the road allow for group discounts as voters intended, but only if those groups are justified and non-discriminatory.”
Other key findings from the Department’s investigation:
– Motorists in affinity groups are more likely to reside in ZIP Codes with a predominantly non-Hispanic white population.
– Three-quarters of motorists residing in underserved communities were not in an affinity group, compared to 57 percent for the rest of the state.
– Motorists in affinity groups are more likely to reside in ZIP Codes with a higher average educational attainment. Only 28 percent of those living in areas with the lowest number of college degrees receive discounts, compared to 56 percent for those where half or more have college degrees.
Proposition 103 permits groups to exist, but the Department’s proposed regulations would ensure that groups are offered equally to persons regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, primary language, immigration status, occupation, educational attainment, or income level.
This proposed action would effectively ensure that all Californians have access to insurance group discounts as intended by Proposition 103.
The department will hold a prenotice workshop on the proposed regulations on Tuesday, January 28, 2020, at the Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles.
The purpose of the prenotice workshop is to provide interested and affected stakeholders an opportunity to present comments regarding the proposed regulation changes and how rates and rating practices are used for group private passenger automobile insurance in California.
The Department of Insurance is responsible for the review and approval of automobile insurance premiums in the state to ensure they are fair and based on objective factors.
Proposition 103 established the mandatory factors to be a driver’s driving safety record, miles driven, and years of driving experience, followed by optional factors that the Commissioner may permit for use in automobile insurance rating. This would be only the third major reform to the optional factors in the last decade.
In January 2019, the Department of Insurance prohibited the use of gender in private passenger automobile rate-setting in order to remove factors that are beyond a driver’s control.
- Details
- Written by: California Department of Food and Agriculture
These programs include the Healthy Soils Program, or HSP, Incentives Program and the HSP Demonstration Projects.
The HSP Incentives Program provides financial assistance for implementation of agricultural management practices that improve soil health, sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The HSP Demonstration Projects showcase California farmers and rancher's implementation of HSP practices.
The draft request for grant applications establish parameters by which competitive grants for the HSP Incentives Program and the HSP Demonstration Projects must be submitted and evaluated.
The draft request for grant applications can be found on the following webpages under the CDFA’s Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation:
– HSP Incentives Program: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/IncentivesProgram.html ;
– HSP Demonstration Projects: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/DemonstrationProjects.html.
Public comments on the draft guidelines will be accepted through Jan. 7, 2020, at 5 p.m. Pacfic Time (15-day comment period). Comments regarding the draft guidelines must be submitted to the specific email address noted on each draft document listed above.
This draft has several new changes based on public comment received at a stakeholder meetings and at the public meetings of the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel.
To accommodate longer application timelines, CDFA is proposing, for the first time, a rolling application period over four months unless all funds are expended prior to the end date.
CDFA also heard about the need to make the application more user friendly and worked to streamline some of the questions in the application itself.
“We hope these changes will make this program more accessible to a larger number of farmers and ranchers in California,” said CDFA Secretary Karen Ross. “As one of the first programs in the nation to focus on carbon sequestration using working private lands in California, we hope to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions and ensure our agricultural soils are healthy and productive into the future.”
The Healthy Soils Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment—particularly in disadvantaged communities.
The Cap-and-Trade program also creates a financial incentive for industries to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution.
California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more.
At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, low-income communities and low-income households across California.
For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov.
- Details
- Written by: California Department of Insurance
The action furthers Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara’s Nov. 14 order, which revoked portions of the FAIR Plan’s current plan of operation and ordered the “insurer of last resort” to make changes to its plan to better serve and protect California homeowners.
The FAIR Plan is required under Insurance Code section 10095(f) to submit a plan of operation within 30 days of the Nov. 14 order. The FAIR Plan failed to do that and decided to sue the Department instead.
Commissioner Lara is taking this action to help homeowners find adequate coverage to protect their homes by ordering the FAIR Plan to offer a comprehensive policy, known as HO-3 coverage, in addition to its current dwelling fire-only coverage by June 1, 2020, with traditional homeowner features, such as coverage for water damage and personal liability.
The revised plan also requires the FAIR Plan to expand its coverage limits from $1.5 million to $3 million and to offer consumers a monthly payment plan and the ability to pay by credit card or electronic funds transfer all without fees.
These actions are also following up on requests made by countless wildfire survivors who are finding themselves without comprehensive insurance coverage from the admitted insurance marketplace and who, instead, have to rely on the FAIR Plan for their only homeowners coverage.
“My department issued this revised plan of operation to show we are moving forward as required by law to protect homeowners throughout the state,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. “The FAIR Plan has become the only permanent option for many homeowners abandoned by the private insurance market. This plan will provide homeowners with the option of basic coverage they deserve in order to feel safe and protect our local economies from the state’s growing insurance availability crisis.”
The new plan of operation requires the FAIR Plan to file a rate application for the HO-3 coverage option only for review and approval by the Department.
The FAIR Plan may also file any rate or rule application necessary to implement the increased $3 million maximum limits of liability.
HO-3 coverage will save consumers from having to purchase a second companion policy to cover other hazards such as liability, water damage, and theft.
While the FAIR Plan is intended as a temporary solution until consumers can find insurance on the standard market, it is important that its product mirrors traditional coverage as much as possible.
Many of the affected California homeowners have already been inconvenienced by planned power outages by utilities, mandatory evacuations, and repeated wildfire threats year after year.
Requiring these same homeowners to have to piece together multiple policies to achieve full coverage is needlessly burdensome and costly.
"As a 30-year resident with no insurance claims, the notice of non-renewal from my insurance company felt like a betrayal, especially after the rate increases over the past five years," said Brenda Meyer, Realtor/broker and board director of the East Valley Association of Realtors, located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. "My only option was the California FAIR Plan and I knew I needed more coverage than it currently provided. The FAIR Plan modifications that many of us have asked for will be helpful to our clients so they can make informed decisions, and the added payment convenience is a necessity for many struggling owners."
This change is in addition to other changes that Commissioner Lara convinced the FAIR Plan to undertake earlier this year, including providing more transparency in their meetings and allowing the Department of Insurance to participate in those meetings as well as mandating the FAIR Plan obtain Department approval prior to disbursing any operating profits back to participating insurers.
- Details
- Written by: Napa County District Attorney's Office
Fashion Nova is a retailer that operates in the “fast fashion” industry. “Fast fashion” refers to clothing that moves rapidly from popular culture to mass production and retail sale. The majority of Fashion Nova’s sales take place on its website.
The civil action alleges that Fashion Nova violated consumers’ rights by repeatedly failing to fulfill and ship orders within the legally mandated time frame.
The complaint alleges that Fashion Nova repeatedly violated a California law that requires it to ship items to California consumers within 30 days of their orders, and failed to provide adequate delay notices.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that Fashion Nova committed other violations of the law, such as failing to adequately disclose its return policy on the website.
“Online shoppers should feel confident that the retailers with whom they do business will deliver what they promise when they promise, within the bounds of California law,” Deputy District Attorney Katy Yount said. “This consumer protection action not only ensures that, but also protects retailers who expend time and money to play by the rules.”
The judgment includes an injunction to prevent further violations of law and requires Fashion Nova to pay approximately $250,000 in direct restitution to consumers.
Without admitting liability, Fashion Nova was further ordered to pay $1.5 million in costs, penalties and other remedial payments.
The company cooperated in the investigation and agreed to make changes to its business practices.