On June 8 California voters will decide what they think about Proposition 17, but until then the debate continues. Supporters say it will help more than 80% of the state’s residents because they could keep their continuous coverage discounts with them when they switch car insurance providers. Drivers say as much as $250 a year with these benefits, but currently the benefits are lost when you switch to a new insurance carrier according to an LA Times report.

Those against Proposition 17 say it will drive up costs, especially for people who gave up driving because of various reasons ranging from military service to medical conditions. Those against the legislation say new drivers and those with bad driving records would also face higher costs. Both sides have been lobbying hard, with insurance companies spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns in the weeks before the vote.

Business groups are largely backing the proposition because of its added freedom for changing insurance providers because they believe it would add more competition. Others say the new law would undermine an old on that strengthened the link between insurance costs and the risk certain drivers hold, according to Richard Holober of the Consumer Federation of California. “It is discriminatory against people who are down on their luck and serving their country,” Holober said to the LA Times. Holober says that drivers who suspend their insurance for more than 90 days because they’re not driving would then have to pay surcharges to reactivate their car insurance coverage.

A surcharge like that would impact drivers like Ben Gartner, a teacher who stopped driving for a year and a half when gas prices soared. Gartner worries he’d have to pay a huge surcharge if Proposition 17 passes. “I would feel it was very unfair if I had to pay more for insurance because I wasn’t driving. I didn’t have anything negative on my driving record. I did it to save money,” he said to the LA Times. But supporters say that won’t happen. “California is the most highly regulated insurance market in the country, with significant consumer protections, and our opponents know darn well the Department of Insurance would never approve rates with the surcharges they allege would occur,” said Mike Darrell to the LA Times, executive director of the Sacramento-based Alliance of Insurance Agents and Brokers.

The Arena Football League is back in the game last weekend after taking a season off. They resumed play with 15 teams, but none of those teams are in California. According to the New York Times, the AFL didn’t return to California because of the state’s worker’s compensation system, which allowed retired players to collect big money for claims that wouldn’t have qualified in other states.  “It’s definitely part of the decision-making process,” Jerry Kurz, the league’s commissioner, said to the New York Times. “I bring it up in the first conversation I have with anyone interested in bringing a team to California.”

There has been interest from ownership groups wanting to launch a team in California. But costs from retired athletes have halted the move. The AFL has a league-wide insurance policy which distributes costs evenly among the 15 teams, regardless of where the team is located. But California carries such high liability that the ownership group there would have to cover insurance costs themselves through a separate policy.

The problem lies in the fact that AFL runs slimmer profit margins as compared to the NFL. So a few extra insurance claims can mean the difference between a good year and a bad one. “The big guys can afford it — it’s a blip on the radar to them,” said Andrew Kline in an New York Times report, a senior managing director of the investment bank Park Lane who has advised potential California ownership groups. “It’s massive to the AFL team.”

In April of 2008, the state of Massachusetts introduced its drivers and auto insurance providers to a new system of “managed competition.” Now, at the end of August 2008, there seem to be few issues with the system. Motorists and auto insurance providers alike remain quiet. For Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes, no news is, it appears, good news.

Every driver is required by law to carry some form of automobile insurance. This is to protect the interest and well being of the car’s owner. Insurance policies differ with each company and each holder as does the exact way those claims are filed. There are, however, enough similarities to give a general overview on the process.

Filing an insurance claim can be stressful and even a hassle but well worth it especially if extensive damage has been done. Most insurance claims are ones dealing with damage and not personal injury. No matter the type of injury or who is at fault what an insurance claim boils down to is proof.

The state of California is considering a new kind of insurance policy, already available from some insurance companies in 34 of the 50 states. It is also an option in many European Union countries, in Canada, and in Japan. This new policy is environmentally sound and reflects the higher costs of driving an automobile in today’s geopolitical and economic conditions. Moreover, it can save policyholders as much as $650. This new policy type is known as “pay-as-you-drive.”