The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has released a strongly worded statement against Consumer Watchdog following a ‘disappointing’ development.
Having met the minimal threshold requirements, Consumer Watchdog was found eligible to seek compensation in California Department of Insurance proceedings as an intervenor for the next two years. The eligibility comes despite several concerns raised by the insurance industry and government officials alike.
Common questions include: “How does Consumer Watchdog represent consumers when they have no members in their organization? If Consumer Watchdog has no members, and no voters they are accountable to, then who watches the ‘Watchdog’? Does Consumer Watchdog’s intervention serve as a positive for consumers, or does it result in unnecessary delay?”
It was noted that the nonprofit submitted a response to public comments in July, initially failing to provide a description of the relevant work it conducted. An additional submission was made upon scrutiny, and Consumer Watchdog was also urged to provide more information upfront in subsequent requests.
In response to the matter of eligibility, APCIA assistant vice president for state government relations Laura Curtis had this to say: “We are disappointed that Consumer Watchdog, which admits having zero consumer members, will be allowed to continue its self-interested efforts that are contributing to California’s insurance crisis.
“Consumer Watchdog has pocketed tens of millions of dollars abusing the intervenor process, causing delays and disruptions to the insurance market that ultimately harm consumers. New independent research has concluded Consumer Watchdog is a major impediment to the efficient function of the insurance market.
“We commend the Commissioner’s commitment to increasing transparency, and we will continue advocating for greater accountability in the intervenor process.”
While Consumer Watchdog was found eligible, it was clarified in the department’s decision that the granting of the request for eligibility does not ensure compensation in intervened proceedings. According to the department, any recovery of funds for participation requires a separate petition.
What do you think about this story? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
