Thursday, October 14, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Legal staff doubts two ballot measures

Legislature's lawyers say Questions 4, 5 won't achieve goals

CARSON CITY -- Opinions from the Legislature's legal staff on two trial-lawyer backed questions on the November ballot suggest the measures will not accomplish their intended goals.

One opinion, dated Oct. 4, suggests that Question 5 -- the Stop Frivolous Lawsuits and Protect Your Legal Rights Act -- "would not, in any substantive way, provide greater protections or penalties against the filing of vexatious and frivolous lawsuits."

The opinion says there are already laws in Nevada to prohibit such lawsuits and Question 5 provides no "substantive difference" in the prohibited conduct.

An opinion on Question 4 -- The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act -- dated Sept. 3, suggests the 20 percent auto insurance rollback sought in the measure is unlikely to actually reduce premiums.

Information from the Division of Insurance provided to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, "suggests strongly that the reform act may be unable to reduce the premiums paid for motor vehicle insurance by drivers in this state."

The opinion says the Insurance Division already interprets existing law as requiring motor vehicle insurers to charge rates that can be justified by risk and loss and that allow only a reasonable profit.

"We cannot conclude that the ultimate passage of the reform act would actually reduce the premiums paid for motor vehicle insurance by drivers in this state," the opinion says.

Both Questions 4 and 5 are constitutional amendments. If they pass in November they must be approved by voters again in 2006 before they could take effect.

The state's medical community has said all along the real intent of both questions is to undermine medical malpractice reforms now in state law. Those reforms could be made even tougher if Question 3, sought by doctors, is approved by voters in November. It would take effect immediately and limit attorneys fees and eliminate exceptions to a $350,000 cap now in place on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

Scott Craigie, a consultant to the Nevada State Medical Association, which opposes Questions 4 and 5, said the opinions from the Legislative Counsel Bureau lend support to the medical community view of the measures.

The insurance rollbacks won't happen, but were included to win on the real issue of eliminating medical malpractice reforms, he said.

"This is a bait-and-switch tactic and the worst use of a constitutional amendment," he said. "It has multiple topics, one to draw votes and the second to get support for something that would not have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving otherwise."

If voters decide to take a chance anyway and vote for Question 4, the result will be uncertainty for the insurance industry, which means higher rates, not reductions, Craigie said.

And Question 5 would encourage, not limit, frivolous lawsuits, he said. The real intent of the measure is to ban limits on attorneys fees.

But Gail Tuzzolo, a spokeswoman for the measures, said insurance rollbacks have worked in California, and voters have nothing to lose by supporting Question 4.

Las Vegas has the sixth-highest auto insurance rates in the country, she said. Prohibitions on frivolous lawsuits as outlined in Question 5 will be given constitutional protection, the highest level available, Tuzzolo said.

"It will provide the tool judges need to move forward quickly and expeditiously to stop frivolous lawsuits and throw them out of court," she said.