In November 1988, California voters approved Proposition 103, which made changes in the regulation of automobile insurance, as well as the approval of premium rates for property and casualty lines of insurance in California. Proposition 103 also allows for public participation through consumer intervention. Any person who “represents the interests of consumers” and intends to raise any issue relevant to a rate proceeding is permitted to intervene.

Recognizing the importance of public participation, the Legislature also authorized the award of certain costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees to an intervenor who makes a “substantial contribution” to a rate decision. Proposition 103 has allowed, from the time it was implemented in 1988, for any person to initiate or intervene in any proceeding before the Department and to challenge any action of the Insurance Commissioner.

However, citing abuses of this process primarily by an organization known as Consumer Watchdog, the California Insurance Commissioner has proposed and submitted for approval, the first overhaul of intervenor process in 35 years.

A broad coalition of insurance consumers, including home builders, farmers, affordable housing advocates, local governments, bankers, independent insurance agents and others, wrote that they were “in strong support of the California Department of Insurance’s proposed intervenor reforms.”

They claimed that “the intervenor process has been abused for financial gain – at the direct expense of consumers – while contributing to the growing insurance availability and affordability crisis.” They claim that “at the heart of this crisis is a broken rate approval process – made worse by a flawed intervenor process that Consumer Watchdog wrote into Proposition 103 for its own benefit.” And as an example they say “Despite contributing no measurable benefit, Consumer Watchdog – an organization with ZERO members and no accountability – has pocketed more than $22.5 million in intervenor fees by exploiting the intervenor program – the very program they wrote into law. These fees are ultimately paid for by consumers through higher premiums.’

A coalition of consumer, labor, senior, immigrant, low-income, and public advocates and concerned civic organizations on proposed regulations authored a letter in opposition to the proposed reforms. It claimed the reforms would result in “stifling consumer voices in the setting of insurance rates and regulations.”

However, it was the Insurance Commissioner who concluded in legal documents that “Significantly, Consumer Watchdog is the primary financial beneficiary of a process it created over thirty years ago, and a process that constitutes the largest source of funding for its organization.” The Commissioner went on to say “Consumer Watchdog, who has no members and is accountable to no one but itself, fails to acknowledge the role of the Department’s rate regulation branch in the rate application process, and wrongly contends to have saved consumers $6 billion in insurance premiums since 2002. The Department’s rate regulation branch analyzes all rate change requests to ensure that what is being requested by insurers is compliant under Proposition 103. If proposed rates are excessive, the Department then requires insurers to reduce the proposed rates to no greater than the maximum permitted rate under Proposition 103. The goal of inviting additional public participation is to bring in a unique perspective or additional value, and not to simply participate for participation’s sake.”

Following the rulemaking procedures that aired these points of view, the California Department of Insurance has submitted its Intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau Fairness and Accountability rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for final review – what is claims is “marking the most significant modernization of the intervenor system since Proposition 103 was enacted in 1988.

The reforms strengthen transparency, improve efficiency, and protect consumer dollars in the insurance rate review process. Once approved by OAL, the regulations will establish clear standards for intervenor compensation, expand public reporting, and reinforce the Department’s authority to ensure that every dollar in the rate review process serves the public interest.

“These reforms strengthen Proposition 103 by bringing long overdue transparency and accountability to every part of the rate review process,” said Commissioner Lara. “Californians deserve to know that every dollar in this system is protected, and I will not allow any organization — insurer or intervenor — to operate without clear guardrails.”

Key provisions of the regulations include:

– – Clarifying “substantial contribution” and reasonableness standards for an intervenor’s request for compensation
– – Defining the role of the Department’s Administrative Hearing Bureau (AHB) in settlement agreements and requests for compensation
– – Requiring regular status updates from AHB Administrative Law Judges every 30 days to all parties
– – Expanding public reporting by posting intervenor activity and statistics on the Department’s website
– – Improving public access to proceedings through required posting of AHB calendars, dockets, and documents

The Insurance Commissioner also addressed mischaracterizations raised by opponents during the rulemaking process. “Some groups have misrepresented these reforms as limiting consumer voices. That is simply false,” he said. “The right to intervene remains untouched. What changes is the expectation that compensation must be earned, documented, and aligned with the issues in the proceeding.”

The Office of Administrative Law has up to 30 working days to complete its review. Once approved, the regulations will be filed with the Secretary of State and take effect shortly thereafter.

Jessie Walton enrolled as a postsecondary nursing student at Victor Valley Community College District in 2017. Her coursework required her to complete clinical rotations at two local hospitals under the supervision of District faculty. Her supervisor during the spring 2018 rotations was Diego Garcia, the District’s nursing program director.

Walton alleged that Garcia subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment, attempting to coerce her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades. When she rejected his advances, Garcia allegedly retaliated by giving her a failing grade and refusing to discuss it with her.

In June 2018, Walton sent a formal complaint letter to the District. The District placed Garcia on administrative leave and hired a third-party firm to investigate. In August 2018, the District denied Walton’s request for a grade correction. She withdrew from the program in September 2018 and eventually completed her nursing degree out of state. By November 2018, the third-party investigator issued a 79-page report confirming Garcia had engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior” and harassed at least one other female student. District HR recommended his removal from his tenured position, and Garcia never returned.

In December 2018, Walton’s attorney sent the District a detailed 13-page letter outlining Garcia’s misconduct and Walton’s estimated damages, warning of potential litigation. After failed mediation, Walton filed suit asserting five claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief; Civil Code violations; Education Code violations; and negligence.

The District moved for summary judgment, arguing Walton lacked FEHA standing, failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, and could not show deliberate indifference under Education Code section 66270.

At the hearing, the trial court excluded Walton’s attorney’s declaration because it lacked a penalty-of-perjury subscription and omitted the place of execution — a technical deficiency counsel acknowledged on the spot as an oversight. Less than an hour after the hearing, counsel filed a corrected declaration curing both defects. The court ignored the corrected filing and sustained the objection. Without the declaration, key opposition evidence — including deposition excerpts showing the District had prior knowledge of Garcia’s harassment of other students — was stripped from the record.

The trial court then granted summary judgment for the District on all claims, finding: (1) Walton lacked FEHA standing because she was a student, not an unpaid intern; (2) the December 2018 attorney letter did not satisfy Government Claims Act notice requirements; and (3) the District’s investigation demonstrated it was not deliberately indifferent to Walton’s complaints.

The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment on all claims except Walton’s Civil Code cause of action, which she did not contest on appeal in the published case of Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District Case No. G064668 (April 2026). The District was granted summary adjudication on that single claim only.

On the excluded declaration, the court held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a cure of a plainly technical defect. The court emphasized that granting summary judgment based on a curable procedural default deprives a party of a decision on the merits. Here, counsel was present in the courtroom, offered to fix the error immediately, and in fact filed a corrected declaration within the hour. The District identified no prejudice from allowing the cure.

On FEHA standing, the court rejected the notion that “student” and “unpaid intern” are mutually exclusive categories. The Legislature’s 2015 amendment to FEHA explicitly extended protections to unpaid interns, and the legislative history of Assembly Bill No. 1443 (2013–2014 Regular Session) specifically identified nursing clinical rotations as the type of internship the amendment was designed to cover. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11008(m) further defines an unpaid intern as “any individual (often a student or trainee)” working without pay in a limited-duration program. Walton therefore had standing.

On Government Claims Act notice, the court found Walton’s attorney’s detailed December 2018 letter substantially satisfied the statutory requirements. The court reiterated that a claim is sufficient if it discloses enough information for the public entity to investigate and potentially settle. The District could not even identify which required element the letter allegedly omitted. A claimant’s subjective intent in labeling a letter a confidential settlement communication is irrelevant — what matters is whether the letter disclosed a claim that, if unresolved, would result in litigation. It did.

On deliberate indifference, the court found triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. While the District pointed to its investigation as proof of responsiveness, the court noted the investigation concluded only after Walton had already been forced out of the program — it conferred no benefit on her. A reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference from the District’s refusal to address her grade while she was still enrolled. The excluded deposition evidence — showing the District had prior complaints about Garcia harassing other students — reinforced that a genuine factual dispute existed.

On negligence, the court rejected the District’s reliance on Thomas v. Regents of University of California (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, which held that colleges have no duty to protect students from purely nonphysical harassment. Because Walton alleged unwanted physical touching, Thomas was inapplicable, and her negligence claim survived.