Three insurance trade groups announced they filed suit yesterdayto block new California regulations that would limit their use ofgeographic location data to rate policyholders in the state.

In addition to the insurer groups, an earlier action was filedby a farmers' organization.

Filed in Sacramento Superior Court, the insurer groups' suitseeking a temporary restraining order was brought on behalf of theAssociation of California Insurance Companies, the AmericanInsurance Association and the Personal Insurance Federation ofCalifornia. The three trades represent more than 90 percent ofinsured drivers in California.

Their action is the latest move in a continuing conflict betweenproperty-casualty insurers and California Insurance CommissionerJohn Garamendi.

In May, during his campaign to win the Democratic Primary forlieutenant governor, auto insurers unleashed an advertisingcampaign attacking the regulatory change and Mr. Garamendi, who wonhis party's nomination, accused them of blackmail.

The suit seeks declaratory the rules are illegal and asks forinjunctive relief to stop enforcement of the rating regulations.The organizations contend the new rules will harm "millions" ofpolicyholders and force "60 percent of California drivers to paymore for auto insurance so other motorists can pay less."

A similar lawsuit was filed Tuesday by the California FarmBureau Federation. The Farm Bureau is seeking to stopimplementation of the regulations on behalf of its 88,000 farmfamily members who drive in rural and suburban neighborhoods.

Sam Sorich, ACIC president, in a statement announcing the suit,said the new regulations will "significantly reduce where a car isgaraged as a rating factor in developing auto insurance rates."

"As a result, insurers will be forced to charge unfair rates,compelling a majority of drivers--particularly in rural areas--tosubsidize premiums paid by other Californians," he said.

"Under these regulations, the state will be picking 'winners'and 'losers' and forcing insurers to charge arbitrary rates," saidRex Frazier, president, PIFC.

Mr. Frazier added, "The California Court of Appeal ruled in 2000in a case known as Spanish Speaking vs. Low that the auto ratingregulations used today are legal and comply with the requirementsset forth in Proposition 103. These new regulations violateProposition 103 because they would require insurers to charge ratesthat do not reflect the actual risk of loss."

According to a spokesperson for Mr. Garamendi's office, the newregulations are aimed at fulfilling a Proposition 103 mandaterequiring rates to be tied directly to driving record, frequency ofuse and number of years driving.

Norman Williams, a spokesperson from Mr. Garamendi's office,said earlier that it was "difficult to argue that the regulationswill do the harm that they [insurers] believe."

Mr. Williams noted that the Automobile Club of SouthernCalifornia, in addition to revising its rating factors according tothe regulations, was able to give its 1 million customers a 7percent premium decrease.

But according to Ken Gibson, AIA vice president, western region,Mr. Garamendi has "ignored the concerns of millions ofCalifornians. Decades of data prove that insurance costs differamong areas in California."

Mr. Gibson said that, "Besides being actuarially sound, it isjust common sense that a driver traveling 50 miles a day throughcongested downtown Los Angeles faces a far greater risk of havingan accident than another motorist traveling the same distance onrural roads."

The Superior Court has 16 working days to conduct a hearing onthe request for injunctive relief.