Available 24/7
California Proposition 213 is a law passed by California voters in 1996 that bars a driver who is uninsured, intoxicated, or committing a felony from recovering non-economic damages following a motor vehicle accident. The prohibition applies regardless of fault.
For uninsured drivers, Prop 213 is controversial because it punishes victims based on their coverage rather than who was at fault in the accident. In the following article, our California car accident lawyers explain the details of Prop 213 and how it may affect your accident claim.
Understanding the Purpose and Scope of California Prop 213
According to a 2023 report from the Insurance Research Council, California is ranked 8th in the highest number of uninsured drivers on the road with 20.4%.
Prop 213, also known as the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, was written to encourage drivers to carry insurance. The California law limits the rights of uninsured motorists, drunk drivers, and persons committing a felony to sue for non-economic damages when they are hurt in an accident.
The law has actually been codified under two statutes:
- California Civil Code § 3333.3: An injured person cannot recover damages in a negligence claim if their own injuries resulted from committing a felony (or fleeing one) that they were later convicted of.
- California Civil Code § 3333.4: Vehicle owners are barred from recovering non-economic damages if they were driving uninsured, intoxicated, or otherwise disqualified under the state’s financial responsibility laws at the time of the accident.
Non-economic damages represent the impact on the victim’s quality of life. They are based on the individual and typically do not have a direct financial value attached to them. However, they are just as relevant as any economic loss like lost wages and medical bills.
Under these statutes, a person may not recover non-economic losses such as:
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Inconvenience
- Physical impairment
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Loss of consortium
The non-economic damages prohibition set by Prop 213 applies to anyone who falls into the following categories:
- A drunk driver
- The owner of a vehicle in the accident that is not insured
- The operator of a vehicle who cannot show financial responsibility
- Any person in the commission of a felony at the time of the crash
If you fall into one of these categories, non-economic damages may be off the table, but that doesn’t mean your case is over.
It’s free to speak with us and learn the value of your case today.
Call Us NowHow Prop 213 Works Within California’s Fault-Based System
Usually, California uses a comparative negligence system to award compensation for motor vehicle accidents. The party responsible for the accident, by negligence or more serious conduct, pays the victims for their losses. However, Prop 213 limits the rights of crash victims. If the accident victim doesn’t have car insurance, or if they were drunk driving, or committing a felony at the time of the crash, they cannot claim non-economic compensation.
Please be aware that the victim can still recover something. They may still claim economic losses. Economic losses are strictly financial, such as:
- Medical expenses
- Lost income
- Reduced earning potential
- Property damage
- Out-of-pocket costs
That may sound fair, but in cases of severe to catastrophic injuries, where pain and suffering, physical impairment, and inconvenience typically comprise a significant portion of a settlement demand, these losses are blocked when Prop 213 applies.
The Exception to California Prop 213: Drunk Driving
Normally, an uninsured vehicle owner who’s injured in a crash can’t recover non-economic damages under Prop 213, even if the crash wasn’t their fault. That’s the general rule.
But CIV § 3333.4 carves out an exception specifically for this scenario. If the at-fault driver was driving under the influence and receives a DUI conviction, the uninsured victim may then recover non-economic damages. This exception protects the uninsured victim, but it hinges on the other driver’s DUI conviction.
Is Proposition 213 a Good Law?
As stated, Proposition 213 is very controversial.
Supporters and insurance companies argue that it restores fairness to the civil justice system by preventing uninsured drivers, drunk drivers, and felons from profiting off lawsuits despite breaking the law themselves. They contend that the proposition has helped to lower auto insurance premiums for law-abiding Californians by shifting more of the financial burden back onto high-risk, rule-breaking conduct.
Those opposing the proposition say that it prohibits accident victims from receiving justice for their injuries. They say that it punishes people without insurance for something completely unrelated to the causes of the accident.
If you’ve been injured or a loved one has been killed through an act of negligence, you need the highest level of legal representation.
Schedule a Free ConsultationWas Prop 213 Ever Challenged in Court?
Yoshioka v. Los Angeles Superior Court was a 1997 court case challenging the constitutionality of Prop 213. The petitioner was involved in an auto accident. They did not have car insurance at the time, and they were not at fault for the accident.
The Court’s Ruling on Damages
As the case proceeded to trial, the at-fault party moved to exclude evidence of general damages, another term for non-economic damages. The judge granted the request. The judge also allowed the at-fault party to plead Prop 213 as an affirmative defense. The petitioner appealed.
The Due Process Challenge
Due process and equal protection of the law were the two grounds used to challenge Prop 213. Under due process guaranteed by the Constitution, the petitioner argued that it was unfair that the government would deny full recovery of their losses.
The court responded that monetary awards never fully compensate a victim for what has happened. Monetary damages are an imperfect measure for personal loss.
The court ruled that the injured party could still receive some compensation. However, the state had a justifiable interest in the law as it encouraged people to follow the state’s financial responsibility law and get car insurance.
The Equal Protection Challenge
Equal protection means the law can’t treat people differently without good reason. If a law separates people into groups, that grouping has to serve a real purpose. Courts ask two questions:
- Does the law have a legitimate goal?
- Does sorting people into these specific groups actually help reach that goal?
If both answers are yes, the law holds up. If the government can’t tie the grouping to a legitimate purpose, the law fails the test.
The court said that classifying uninsured people or drunk drivers as a group serves a state interest. The court also ruled that all members of the classes are prohibited from seeking non-economic compensation for a motor vehicle crash.
Ultimately, the court upheld Prop 213. Litigants should be aware of the law and how it may impact a claim following a car accident.
What You Should Know About Proposition 213
If you are a car accident victim, it’s important to understand that Prop 213 may affect your case. If you fall into one of the categories named in the law, whether you are at fault for the accident or not, know that Prop 213 may apply to limit the compensation you can receive.
However, you may still deserve significant financial compensation for economic losses. If there are allegations of shared fault or a counterclaim, it’s important to know if you need to raise Prop 213 as a defense and when to raise the issue. Our personal injury attorneys may be able to help.
Contact Sargent Law Firm Injury Lawyers About Your Car Accident Claim Today
At Sargent Law Firm Injury Lawyers, we are a law firm dedicated to helping injured people recover. Whatever your situation, our personal injury lawyers want to fight for the compensation you deserve. We understand Prop 213 and how it may impact your personal injury claim for compensation.
Contact us for a free initial case evaluation and learn how our accident attorneys can help. We can talk about Prop 213, how it may impact your case, and how we can fight for your rights.
