Opinion ID: 2604151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual and Procedural Background of this Litigation

Text: The individual named plaintiffs in this action are seven residents of South Central Los Angeles. [5] At the time this action was filed, they ranged in age from 19 to 73. Most were retired or unemployed, but one was employed and earning $17,000 a year. Some suffered from medical disabilities (none of which precluded driving), and some relied on driving to go to and from work or to the doctor. Some had been insured in the recent but not immediate past, while others had not been insured. Despite the above differences, all of the named plaintiffs shared some common characteristics. As previously noted, all lived in South Central Los Angeles. None of them had been involved in an accident or had a traffic violation within the last three years or since they started driving. [6] All have had difficulty finding insurers willing to issue them a policy, and none had found private insurance at premiums below those offered by CAARP. Plaintiffs felt that it was unfair to lump them with bad drivers for insurance purposes notwithstanding their clean driving records, and to be charged correspondingly higher premiums as a result. Many could not afford insurance even under the CAARP or would have difficulty paying the CAARP premiums. The action was brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, specifically, licensed drivers who do not have the required insurance or proof of insurance and all who have been fined or lost their licenses pursuant to Vehicle Code section 16034. The class has not been certified. The defendants are (in their official capacities) George Meese, former Director of the DMV, James Smith, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, John Van De Kamp, Attorney General, and Sherman Block, Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Neither the Commissioner nor any private insurer has been named a party defendant in the action. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Friday September 13, 1985, and requested a temporary restraining order enjoining the operation of the 1984 Act. The trial court refused to issue the restraining order, but set a hearing date for plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In support of their motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs submitted a number of declarations and exhibits. [7] This evidence tended to establish that the level of competition among automobile insurers found elsewhere in the state was lacking in South Central Los Angeles. Most mainstream insurers were allegedly refusing to write policies in that area, or would only insure those who already had insurance. Many of the insurers who did offer insurance for the area were said to be sub-standard, that is, they specialized in high risk customers and hence charged the highest rates. Insurance by mail was also available, but plaintiffs did not discuss this option except to note that such companies provide no service through agents or offices for acquiring insurance, servicing policies, or handling claims. Defendants submitted no evidence in opposition to plaintiffs' motion. However, this court may (as did the trial court) infer from enactment of the 1984 Act itself that the Legislature had determined that substantial harm was being caused by uninsured drivers, especially if their victims were not themselves insured. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion, finding that a balance of hardships favored defendants. Plaintiffs then petitioned the Court of Appeal for supersedeas. That court denied the petition. We granted the subsequent petition to this court for review, and stayed enforcement of the 1984 Act. We also transferred the appeal, then pending before the Court of Appeal, to this court.