We are still trying to recoop losses from an accident in 2004. The other person was cited, her insurance, SAFECO, has treated us horribly. The only recourse we have had was to hire an atty.

I am opposed to this issue for the following reasons.
1) Why award triple the damages?
2) Why are some health insurance companies exempt from this referendum?

I am voting for R 67-if insurance companies treated their clients fairly in the first place we wouldn't need this.

Mr. Weinstein is a disingenuous, self-serving person who obviously, even though he states he does not practice law, has an agenda that clearly supports frivolous lawsuits that would benefit the coffers of the attorney population far more than the individuals they represent.

Tort lawsuits are out of control. We should follow English Law where the loser pays all costs in a lawsuit and there is no such thing as contingency fees. That would eliminate most harrassment lawsuits

I think the key point here is that the penalty would only be valid in a case where the insurance company was found to have "unreasonably" delayed or denied a claim. From the perspective of an insurance company, if they are only liable for the amount in the claim, it makes perfect sense for them to try and delay or deny payment. Even if they are taken to court and lose, they're only required to pay the original amount. There's no penalty, and there is a certain percentage of their customers that won't have the resources, time, or inclination to fight them. R-67 would hold the insurance companies accountable, but only as far as treating people's claims in a "reasonable" manner, which isn't too much to ask.

Definitely APPROVE 67! A good attorney will not take a frivilous case to begin with, and R-67 only applies to moneies that the insurance companies are ALREADY REQUIRED to pay.

NO.NO.NO. Look at California. Small businesses suffer and so do consumers. Insurance rates go up and, just as in the Bat Chief's case would have been, workers comp suffers. Taxes go up, rates go up, and everyone pays. NO ON R-67

My dad was in a cocktail lounge drinking, when he left, he slipped on the icy step ouside and broke his leg. He filed against the resturant insurance,and they denied it. He had to get a lawyer, won and it cost the insurance company much more than had they paid in the beginning. All he wanted was his bills paid for, and it cost them alot more.
To top it off, the Resturant owners wanted the bill paid, and the insurance refused, so even the covered client had no say for the liability insurance, and the lawsuit caused termoil between the owner and other towns people who patrionized that resturant/lounge.

Robert: Thanks for sharing information on Referendum 67. I personally had to get legal representation against my own auto insurance company. In 1987 I got a whiplash injury from an auto accident that was caused by an uninsured driver. I had uninsured driver coverage in my policy. After the accident, I was in the hospital with a collasped lung speaking to my insurance agent on the phone when he announced, "I don't think we can cover that hospital stay." With the assistance of an attorney I as able to have all my medical care costs covered plus pain and suffering. If I didn't get an attorney, my insurance company would have driven me into bankrupcy.

I like to know how any civilized society would stand for any American dying because of the cost of medical procedures when we can spend billions of dollars in a war that obtains revenues for the special interest of the Bush family. The American people are hypocrytical and blind.

I will vote yes. I have been in several auto accidents (not my fault)and was treated not only unfairly by Progressive (my auto insurance), but also very rudely. With delays for payments to my providers along with partial % payments, I have been left with out of pocket expenses that are difficult to pay. I will have a settlement form the at fault driver's insurance company, but until I settle, I'm required my own unfairly, uncovered bills. I'm on a fixed social security income at age 52.

If insurance companies know that they could face legal action for denying claims that they feel are too costly (but valid) the "People" will have some degree of control of the settlement decisions. Now we need to look at health insurance company decisions.

I am voting yes on R-67. The insurance companies are out of control. They stood by during the signing of this bill then immediately filed R-67 just so they could oppose it.

The insurance companies will find any way they can to raise rates.

Allstate just settled a class-action lawsuit over their standard practice of underpaying claims. Allstate's spokesman said "However, we deny wrongdoing in connection with the litigation." We believe our medical bill review practices are in full compliance with Washington state law."

I believe it too. That's why we need R-67. Trust insurance companies? You must be one of the last few people in the country who haven't been burned by an insurer who simply denied legitimate claims and, in essence, said "What you gonna do about it?"

I truly believe that the insurance companies should be held liable when they unreasonably deny a claim, maybe they’ll think three times before unreasonably denying any legitimate claims if they them selves are on the hook for their money motivated decisions.

PAM: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU....YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU. Once some people start stepping up to the plate, seeking responsibility, and taking action on their level, LIBERALS, then you will see how much the Government and Insuance Companies work for you...such as the war on terror. No I am not a lawyer or insurance rep, but a US Marine.

We will vote for R67. We also have a lawsuit filed against our Ins, Co. Even tho we had $35,000 in PIP they denied any payments past $10,000. This also involved an un-insured motorist. What can be done about those people?

I was hit by someone who then ran, on I-5. I had to fight with my own insurance company for coverage. They put me in a position where I had to file a complaint with the insurance commissioner. Consult with an attorney and deal with an arbitrator. You bet I'm for 67.

In 2001 I was a passenger, injured when the vehicle, lawfully stopped in traffic, was rear-ended by a 16 year old driver. My own PIP covered my injuries up to it's limit. Neither the driver of the vehicle I was in, NOR State Farm who was covering the offending driver, has paid a dime. State Farm has dragged on for years. My heroic trial lawyer's most recent invoice to me totals (for years of effort on my behal) $6,400. When my PIP ended at 10,000 in medical State Farm spent a year trying to convince judges that it wasn't ME in the vehicle at all. That I was somewhere else at the time. (Yes, when the state trooper got there, I was somewhere else - the ambulance heading to the ER).

Then State Farm spent another year trying to convince judges that I was the cause of the accident because I wanted to stop at a store. If I hadn't wanted to stop at the store, my driver wouldn't have been stopped in traffice - and the accident wouldn't have happened. Well, a judge said NO - the accident is not my fault. Thank goodness for my trial lawyer on that one. If I'd lost that round, I would have had to purchase vehicles for the offending driver who rear ended us, and the person who owned the vehicle I was riding in.

State Farm has been unreasonable beyond comprehension. The 16 year old still has my lawsuit hanging over his head - and he's in his 20s now. His parents selected the insurance that was supposed to protect them, and people like me.

But, his parents, also with my ever-ongoing lawsuit over their heads, too, have paid increased insurance premiums to State Farm because of the accident.

The 16 year old pays higher premiums because of the accident.

After I was cancelled, I had to pay HUGE insurance costs just to be covered by a high risk insurer. Remember, I was the passenger.

My insurance company cancelled my policy - remember, I made a claim for PIP on my own auto insurance for injuries I suffered as a passenger in someone else's auto.

It's just a night mare - I'm in my 60's and with my insurnce and medical bills trying to collect from me, I'll probably be living in a shelter when I retire - broke. I hope voters pass 67. When the insurance companies pay millions to keep trial lawyers unemployed, this means the insurance companies do NOT expect to change their ways. They are willing to spend millions now because they fully expect to CONTINUE to FIGHT unreasonably. Bad insurance companies. We need ref 67 AND some other laws to reel in these outrageous insurance companies. Perhaps government insurance, like British Columbia has.

Shelley Costello, sorry to hear of your Dad's problems, BUT EVERYONE PLEASE REMEMBER R-67 APPLIES ONLY TO YOUR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY.

It does not apply to the usual lawsuits against negligent parties.

Here is why R-67 makes sense: 90% of the insurance abuses are in the auto insurance Personal Injury Protection (PIP) area.

Those are cases where the insurance industry retroactively cuts off payments for ongoing medical or chiropractic treatment. Thus, these claims average less than $4,000 at stake. That is why no attorneys can be hired for such small claims.

The insurance industry uses so-called "peer review" of your medical records. Often that is just a paper mill out of state that ALWAYS says ongoing treatments are excessive. Hence, these fake reviews provide cover to cut off the insured's own treatments.

THAT is why R-67 is necessary. The insurance industry would not agree to put in arbitration for such claims in their policies. They know that forcing someone to court is too expensive. So until we pass R-67 these abuses in auto insurance PIP cases will continue unabated.

The issue is not how much money attorneys will make, the issue is whether or not insurance companies should pay the medical bills of the "insured" who have been paying premiums. If they choose to avoid paying what they promised to pay, a high deterrent can only help. We can not trust a profit making company to do what is best for the welfare of the people. We have seen that with the tobacco companies and many other companies who have been sued due to their neglect of the people's welfare. The choice is to trust that a company will choose what is best for the people, or what is best for their profits. The answer is clear, we had better have a strong deterrent, because profit will always be their first choice.

Robert Annecone
Issaquah

I was just involved in helping my daughter and son in law resolve a claim with Allstate Insurance Co. They had a tree fall on thier house in november of last year. The insurance company dispatched a contractor to handle the repairs. It took the contacter seven months and They did not do all the repair. I had to finish repairing thier house. Yes on R-67

It's SO obvious in the various commericials that the insurance companies are bringing the big guns out and trying to scare people with higher insurance costs. One number stands out to me. Five. Washington is only one of FIVE states in the U.S. where it's okay for the insurance companies to delay and deny without fear of penalty. Why have the other FORTY FIVE states in our country sided with the "evil" trial lawyers unless there was something going on with the insurance companies?? It's high time the tables were turned and they are forced to live up to their syrupy claims on t.v. commerical about being people's friends and good neighbors. Good neighbors don't put people in wheelchairs or kill them in order to make a buck. I know a woman who is in constant pain who has been fighting Boeing for TEN years trying to get just compensation and she's not trying to get rich, just trying to end the endless pain. In this referendum, I don't think most people see trial lawyers as barracudas but as the ONLY hope for those fighting a giant. The fact that the insurance companies have spent so much raises BIG red flags.

Thank you for your excellent program.
I am currently involved in 2 lawsuits after 2 accidents in which i suffered neck and back injuries and lobbied my legislators and the Insurance Commissioner for changes in the law over the past 4 years.
My experiences have shown me how unbelievably corrupt the insurance industry is. I am fortunate enough to have the means and time to fight the injustice done to me by both my own PIP insurer and the at fault company, most people dont have the time or means. This law will even the playing field. Your PIP insurer and at fault company are often in collusion together to fraudulently deny claims. I am currently suing Allstate , my PIP insurer, after they defrauded me and was unable to find a lawyer unless i paid out of pocket $10,000. When my lawyer requested my records Allstate claimed they had lost the records of my claim. How convenient for them. The Insurance Commissioner was of no help.
I wonder how the employees of the insurance companies sleep at night?

IT IS NEEDED. My elven yr. granddaughter & my self were frauded asked state insuravce, to help me and WAS TOLD THEY COULDN'T HELP. My rep. Dan Rouch for help., twice. they didn.t help. Didn't get our med. bills paid. When I refused to sign, I was sued,I was tolded I needed $160,000. to go to court and problly woud get that. I've had over $69,000 in biis and grand daughterhas had biills.

I'm voting YES on R67,even though this is is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue.

Approve R67 and insurance companies will raise your premiums to "punish" you for passing it - even though if they did their job and paid out LEGITIMATE claims,like they're supposed to - and is the PURPOSE for insurance in the first place, they'd have nothing to worry about.

Reject R67 and insurance companies will STILL raise your premiums since they have to get all that money they funneled into the "no"campaign back from somewhere, and that's from it's customers - INCLUDING those that voted NO.

Just the MILLIONS of dollars they're putting into this just shows me where their loyalties lie and it ISN'T with their customers.

Half the people that have posted here do not realize this bill only concerns you and your insurance you pay for. Not the other persons who you are trying make a claim against(it has nothing to do with liability denials).
I thought the king5 coverage of this issue was really biased towards the lawyers as they did not have anyone one against r67 to speak their point of view.
Trial lawyers will find ways to twist what is reasonable in court and find ways to sue for every possible claim filed.
I do not believe the consumers should pay for these types to get triple damage, the consumer does not win from this measure, the sleezy lawyers do.
They say rates wont be affected but look at California and try to get a policy there- its outrageous.
If this is approved everyone will pay the cost of insurance companies overpaying claims from fear of being sued for triple the amt- People with auto accidents with bumper scratches(minor fender bender claims) will be given new stereos , transmissions, and or new engines for fear of suit for triple the amount of these things if the insurance companies do not pay them up front and the customer claims it is a related damage.
No on r67. My insurance company has never treated me wrong.

I would really like to know what effect this site PatientPrivacyRights.org will have on the issue of R-67 if more people were aware of their rights as patients of who can legaly access their medicial information . I was stunned when I learned that HIPPA does not protect us . Please Robert take a minute to read this site and post a response , I have no college education nor am I polictical I just want to understand . For me I am so tired of being misslead Thank You
Joanne Hinz

PatientPrivacyRights.org

We see so many horrible examples of delays and refusal to pay claims. Beneath this are the many non-lethal delays and refusals where consumers either fight for months to get claims paid or just give up and pay it. If you've ever had to fight an insurance company to be paid for a legitimate claim, vote yes. If the insurance companies treat you fairly, they won't be in court.

This measure will put the consumers on equal footing with the insurance companies who know you don't have the finances to fight them.

I do not necessarily agree that a “triple award” is an appropriate answer, but I do think that there should be some way to legally resolve insurance claims that insurance companies will not pay; provided that the claim is ligament. For instance, the TV add ‘disqualifying’ the firefighter’s insurance claim... she is wrong about insurance companies only paying out what doctors prescribe for treatment. I had been having problems with asthma that kept progressing instead of regressing from prescriptions and my doctor kept telling me that I really should see a specialist, but that she knew that my insurance would not cover this until I went through ‘all their ideas of treatment first’. By doing this I almost died in February from a severe asthma attack, and even after that it was hard for me to receive “permission” from my insurance company to see a specialist.

I simply do not understand how we (society) have allowed these companies to have so much control; we are paying these companies thousands of dollars each year and for most of us we have no claims to file but when we do the insurance companies do their darnedest to avoid paying. I honestly do not have any idea what the “right” answer would or should be, but I do strongly agree that something needs to be done to hold insurance companies responsible for what they are charging for regardless of what type of insurance it is (i.e. health, auto, home owners, renters, etc.).

I am voting for R-67. It is time to make big businesses accountable for what they advertise and what we pay for. I am tired of paying endless huge premiums for insurance coverage that, when needed, I have to fight tooth and nail for. It just isn't fair. If Insurance companies truly had our best interest in mind, they would pay up instead of putting the money in their own pockets.

How do I vote if I want the insurance companies to be more responsive but don't want to commit to triple damages and further lawsuits? How does the law define resonable claims? It sounds like a no win situation to me. Why can't the Insurance Commissioner determine if an insurance company is habitually unresponsive and refuse them permission to operate in this state.

We were undecided on 67 until we say your show, the adds on both sides are very misleading. The insurance companies should have to answer the claims of the public who pay the premiums, not the commissioner. Too many families struggle just to pay the premium when its due and to think they might not be covered in a timely manner is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

Why can't we once and for all see the forest for the trees? Insurance companies have, for years, been nothing but a profit-oriented business. Why would we think that their unwillingness to address a flaw in their own system means they have any interests of their insurers in mind? I think not! I fully support forcing them to look at claims with the threat of treble damages in the background as an incentive to do the right thing. They're clearly not able to do the right thing on their own initiative.

I am voting for approval of R-67. Maybe if the State would hold drivers responsible for having insurance like Hawaii does it would help. Everyone must show proof of insurance card once a year. Insurance companies should report to DOL when insurance is cancelled and go after the drivers without insurance. Also all public transportation should have to carry PIP insurance. I have waited almost three years for a court date and that won't come intill 09/2008. I had to get an attorney. Why are they not held accountable. They want to put in on the attorny's why the insurance companies sit back and wait until you give in to their meanial amounts that won't even cover the cost of the medical bills. Vote people and APPROVE R-67. Let the people finally have a say in big business.

Just read another blog. Don't think insurance companies are not going to raise your rates! They have raised them every year since I first got insurance and that is over 50 years ago. This also involves floods, fires, natural disasters. Look at Katrina, they are still waiting. When you file a claim, then they cancel you. Think about that!

Insurance rates are going to go up regardless. Insurance companies are merely using this and covering their butts ahead of time to make up for some of the profits they will lose by actually paying insurance claims fairly. I'm really tired of insurance companies denying claims just because they want to up their profits. Insurance companies have become nothing but legalized extortion. I'm for holding them accountable, or at least attempting to do it. There is a reason that they are spending SOO much money to try to defeat this bill, and it's not because they care about the insureds!!!! Think about it......

If insurance companies treat their policyholders reasonably and fairly, this measure won't cost them a dime. I'm for it.

I will support R 67. While I have an excellent insurance company (USAA), I know that some insurance companies are sometimes unethical and dishonest in handling claims. Triple damages will, perhaps, force insurance companies to be a little more honest and fair in their dealings with consumers.

I will support R 67

Insurance is just a way for society to share the risk/cost of injury and property damage. What could possibly justify someone getting three times what they are entitled to receive, and who do you think will pay for the cost of awarding triple damages and huge attorney fee awards? We all will.

I will definitely vote to approve R-67. If insurance companies were not dishonest and underhanded about their practices it wouldn't be necessary. When you look at what insurance company CEOs make it is ridiculous. That is the answer to why insurance is so expensive. The CEOs need their Mercedes, mansions, yachts, and Caribbean vacation homes, and consumers pay for it. This law will make insurance companies pay legitimate claims without delay, or there will be a penalty. There has to be some form of consumer protection. After all, if we pay for insurance, they should honor their side of the deal and not be corrupt about it. When our own Insurance Commissioner is supporting R-67 and fairness this should be a huge clue to approving it.

Janet repeated an inaccurate statement made in TV ads: "Washington is only one of FIVE states in the U.S. where it's okay for the insurance companies to delay and deny without fear of penalty." Washington law currently provides for several penalties against insurance companies for wrongful delay and denial of claims, including triple damages capped at $10,000 and a right to an award of attorney's fees. I wish advocates on both sides of this referendum would debate the true facts, and I wish the media would challenge advocates who are misstating facts in an effort to mislead and scare the public.

Thanks for your educational program on R67. I will vote to approve R67. Now the insurance industry operates like bank robbers who, if they get caught, only have to pay back the money they stole...and if they do not get caught they get to keep the money! That is a NO RISK, HIGH PROFIT enterprise! Why not keep robbing banks under those rules? If R67 only makes insurance companies treat claimants fairly, every thinking person should vote to approve it.

Another important issue is being overlooked, which voting to approve 67 will address. That is the fact that both houses of our legislature held hearings and passed this law and the Governor signed it. I read that the insurance industry had an army of lobbyists that fought and successfully negotiated changes that are favorable to insurance companies, but they are still not happy. Now they are spending over $10 million (out of state money) trying to "buy" a veto of a law they do not like. I think that tactic is a serious threat to our ability to run our own state. Who will be next, if the insurance industry is successful this time? Think about it. It will not be individuals. It will not be consumers or homeowners. It will not be patients or the elderly. It will not be environmentalists or crime victims. We will be at the mercy of well financed, big money interests. That is scary.

Finally, what are "frivolous" lawsuits? Ones that insurance companies do not like? Maybe there are "frivolous defenses" to legitimate lawsuits that R67 will help prevent.

I will vote to APPROVE R67 and will urge all my relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and others to join me.

Pat in Seattle

Robert - Take a lesson from Fox News, report your story in a "Fair and Balanced" way. I tuned in on the R67 presentation this morning to learn about both sides of this issue. Instead I received a totally biased report from an ATTORNEY from the 'liberal side' of the aisle who, I take it, offered the orginal bill.
Where was the other side? And why pick an attorney to present the 'pro' side?
Even your reporting of the fireman's daughter's ad left one wondering if her claims may not be legitimate, when in my opinion, they were not.
Very dissapointing production. I recommend folks read their voter's pamphlets carefully before making a decision based on watching your program.

What is good for insurance companies is always bad for consumers. I'll vote yes to approve R-67

the insurance cos regularly deny claims unreasonably knowing that most of us will give up and if we dont all they will have to ultimately do is pay up..years later ...iif there is a potential of triple damages they will pay legitimate claims..vote yes ...

Yes, Yes, Yes! Some insurance companies use the red tape to get around paying claims. If someones life is taken or serious physical injury occurs they should have to pay. I have an MRI on my neck to check for cancer in May 07 and my insurance company still has not payed the bill yet they keep sending me in circles having me fill out useless forms and then doing it again saying they never recieved them!

Support - Triple damages are merely a threat to encourage insurance companies to do the right thing. They look at the bottom line and in order to encourage them to honor their contracts, there is an apparent need to balance the scales. This doesn't necessarily mean they would always be required to pay them. It just means that if they are considering denying a claim, they would have to examine if their decision could be construed as unreasonable and what that could cost them. This law would still allow reasonable denials, it would only penalize companies that make unreasonable denials. The higher the potential cost of doing the wrong thing, the more likely they are to do the right thing. The converse also applies.

Two words people...

Hurricane Katrina

If your house/property or car is damaged or destroyed during a windstorm, volcanic eruption, flood or other natural disaster, do you really think your insurance company is going to pay evereything they promised? Of course not! Their motivation is to make money for their executives and stockholders, not to fix everything in your life.

I'll finish this post with this; If you really trust your insurance company to have your best interests in mind, you need to go to www.badfaithinsurance.com and do some research. If you still have doubts about R-67, simply call anyone in New Orleans or Biloxi/Gulfport. Ask them if they are in a house or FEMA trailer.

Robert,

You were way to congenial with the senator. At the point in time when he said he was not practicing law anymore he was very uncomfortable to say the least. There were some clear signs of deception in his follow up.

Anyway, you should have asked the question that most of us probably wanted you to ask. "What do you, senator, stand to personally gain from this, and will you personally profit from such a referendum?

The trial lawyers and criminals are those responsible for driving up insurance costs. If our criminal justice system, made of lawyers, did its job the criminal aspect would be diminished.

If the trial lawyers didn't all have green eyes ($$$$) and put themselves above all else, the other aspect would be diminished as well.

How does a bill predicated on legal intervention (action by attorneys on both sides) have any credibility when it is sponsored by an attorney?

Oddly, when I came to this site to post this, the first thing I saw was a Progressive Insurance advertisement. I guess profit is profit no matter what side you support.

How do those in the middle of all of this survive?

This issue is quite plain. Insurance companies only act in their best interests. They are spending 12 million on ad campaigns? Doesn't that tell you something? I am not a fan of trial lawyers or lawyers for that matter, but having worked in the insurance industry for a number of years, I have seen how poorly they treat their clients. Approve R67 and hold insurance companies to their promise of covering you.

I support R-67. The insurance idustry's deceptive ad campaign attempts to target lawyers who may represent insureds, but it is the greed and unfair claims practices of this industry that necessitate this legislation enacted by our state legislature after full hearings, which the insurance industry would now like to annul. This legislation will provide some measure of protection against the well documented abuses of this powerful industry.

I'm voting for R-67, and the reason is simple; I am a victim of unscrupolous insurance company abuse of pulling out all the stops to keep from paying the very obvious legitimate claim of my mulitple injuries in a traffic collision - that occurred in 2004, which has caused me extreme financial losses - the exact losses the insurance company was "supposed" to be protecting me from! -- The interest alone on the loans paying the expenses of my injuries for years now, will practically nullify whatever settlement the insurance company finally agrees to. -- Do you consider that "fair"? Do you consider that "honoring your contract" with the policyholder? I don't!
The abuse insurance companies in the state of Washington have been allowed to dish out upon policyholders forever, all to save a few dollars off the top of their billions upon billions of dollars of cash and assets, MUST STOP! And, R-67 is the first step in stopping the outrageous abuse.

The insurance companies keep telling people how rich attorneys are going to be if R-67 is passed. They even have a commercial showing an attorney meeting with his staff bragging about all the monies he supposedly made in California settlements and how much he will make in Washington settlements. Let me say that I know for fact that attorneys do not conduct business in that fasion. I have worked in the legal field for eleven years and have never seen an attorney behave in that manner. Further, if the insurance companies compensated people fairly for their valid losses and in a timely manner, there would be no need for a person to have to hire an attorney and therefore the attorneys would not be making any money. So if R-67 is passed, it will actually mean less money will be made by attorneys since the insurance companies will hopefully think three times about denying or drawing out valid claims. Additionally, less lawsuits would be filed in court which would help unclog our court system.

As to the claim by the insurance companies that passing R-67 will lead to frivrolous lawsuits. If the lawsuit is fivrolous, then the insurance company has nothing to worry about because the court will deny damages and they will not be paying the claim.

And finally, the increase in premiums. I don't know about everyone else but my premiums are constantly increasing every 6 months. Especially after a major disaster whether or not that disaster happened in the area where you currently reide. On top of that, if you do make a claim with your insurance company, they will drop you as a client. So people with valid claims against their insurance company are relunctant to file the claim because they stand a chance of having their insurance cancelled.

I will be voting for R-67.

The opposition against R-67 - headed up by the insurance companies are pouring millions into defeating R-67, instead of putting those millions towards paying legitimate claims by their clients. That basically tells you insurance companies have absolutely no interest in your welfare whatsoever. Their only interest is in how much of your money they can take from you, as you hold up your end of the contract by paying your premiums, and then they do everything within the law to keep from honoring their part of the contract with you when its time to do so. Well, the law must be changed to stop that from happening. And R-67 is the first step in balancing the table.
It's very simple: for every day they stall a settlement, they are making money on the money that should be paid to you. They say premiums will go up. Uh, do you know that all insurance companies operating in the state of Washington can raise your premiums simply on the basis that your credit score went down. Don't believe it? Ask them; the laws in our state allows them to do that. - That's about as "frivilous" as it can get. --- Any excuse - a hurrican half a country away - lower credit scores, etc, etc; your premiums will go up no matter what - and that's the next thing to tackle - full disclosure to the public on the means of setting premiums.
If Washington residents are as gullible and naive as the people depicted in the campaign ads against R-67, then we are in deep trouble.
This is a matter of making insurance companies uphold their end of their own contracts with you - nothing more - nothing less. And more often than not, a large penality has to be hanging over their heads to get them to treat people as people.
If the insurance companies never horrifically abused thousands of their clients, R-67 would never have been necessary in the first place. They brought it on themselves - pure and simple. When they prove they can treat their clients ethically, then R-67 will simply be a law on the books that is never invoked. It's that simple.

How is it that anyone can actually believe that insurance companies are "losing" money by holding up their end of a contract to cover damages to a client, and thus have the "need and right" to raise premiums on that basis.
The percentage of income to outgo is extremely in the favor the insurance companies - about 9 to 1, which is why insurance companies own most of the skyscrapers we see around us, and most of the shopping malls we shop in too.
Now, if you asked someone to pay you what they agreed to pay you by contract, and they said they can't do that without charging everyone else more next month on their contracts, while that someone is building another skyscraper right in front of you, would you be so naive and gullible to believe them?
If not, then why would you ever even think of believing what the insurance companies are telling you?
The next phase of reigning in the unbridled arrogance and abuse of insurance companies is a law requiring full disclousure of insurance company assests and earnings. Then, we will all see exactly how we are being taken to the cleaners by them, and finally decide to have the guts to do something about that too.

REJECT R-67!! The insurance industry is already the most heavily regulated business in the state and country for that matter. Passing R-67 is not going to improve claims service as most everyone has some sort of "accident story" to tell. The fact of the matter is that rates will indeed rise from less insurer competition and threats of treble damages. Sure, there are some claims that have difficulties but 99% of the insurers do not "unreasonably deny" claims. Why isn't the insurance commisioners office doing more to go after the naughty insurers? They don't seem to be helping us much while Mr. Kreidler sides with the liberalism of the governor. Other legal remedies are available such as the consumer protection act in the state and you can always sue for "bad faith". Sen. Brian Weinstein, whom sponsored the bill, is himself an attorney and chairman of the Consumer Protection Committee so don't you think there's a conflict of interest here? Lawyers would like nothing better than to reap larger profits from increased litigation at the general publics expense.

Did I miss something, or was their really no counterpoint to the Brian Weinstein support on the issue of R-67 on the Robert Mak show last evening? What kind of fair reporting is that?
Also, can someone tell me what the definition of "unreasonably delaying or denying legitimate claims" is? What is unreasonable? What is delaying?
Given the legal wrangling by former president Clinton over the definition of the word "is", this Referendum is opening a doorway for any trial lowyer to drive a truck through (on the way to his bank).
The insurance companies are not going to lose money if this bill passes. They will pass the increased legal costs on to the policy owners in the form of higher rates. It has been estimated that the average policy owner would pay more than $200 per year additional premiums for the same coverage.
I, for one, do not want to pay more into the coffers of the greedy trial lawyers, which are one of the biggest contributers to our liberal state legislators.
Vote to reject Referendum 67.

Did I miss something, or was their really no counterpoint to the Brian Weinstein support on the issue of R-67 on the Robert Mak show last evening? What kind of fair reporting is that?
Also, can someone tell me what the definition of "unreasonably delaying or denying legitimate claims" is? What is unreasonable? What is delaying?
Given the legal wrangling by former president Clinton over the definition of the word "is", this Referendum is opening a doorway for any trial lowyer to drive a truck through (on the way to his bank).
The insurance companies are not going to lose money if this bill passes. They will pass the increased legal costs on to the policy owners in the form of higher rates. It has been estimated that the average policy owner would pay more than $200 per year additional premiums for the same coverage.
I, for one, do not want to pay more into the coffers of the greedy trial lawyers, which are one of the biggest contributers to our liberal state legislators.
Vote to reject Referendum 67.

Very interesting that this issue is causing the monster to show its teeth. With all the talk about our impotence against insurance companies raising our premiums if we pass R-67, it is being exposed that we also have a huge problem other than making insurance companies pay legitimate claims and making it illegal for them to use their "frivolous" delays - most often than not - for years after the loss and the claim was made.
If it is true - as so many are saying who want to defeat R-67 - that we are totally impotent to control the insurance companies raising our premiums vindictively at will, then that proves we have yet another law to get on the books to control that abuse from the insurance companies as well.
It's so interesting how we are being threatened with even more abuse to scare us into voting against R-67. They're simply proving the point that R-67 is extremely necessary here in Washington, and much more work is yet to be done to reel in the out of control power insurance companies weild with their unbridled - at will - premium gouging of our bank accounts.

I am voting for R-67... 3 years ago my husband was injured in a hit and run accident As a result of the hit and run ( they caught the guy later) he lost both legs above the knee, he was only 25. We have had claim after claim denied and had to fight tooth and nail for them to even cover a wheelchair for him which the insurance company said wasn't a medical nessaity... hello the man had no legs! we have had so many conflicts with the insurance just to pay basic bills. I am all for R-67!!!

Referendum 67 will not affect Washington insurance premiums. State regulations administered by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner do not allow the use of payments for bad faith claims to be used by insurers in setting rates. Any additional court ordered penalties go to the insurer, and cannot be passed onto consumers. Furthermore, R67 gives every insurer 20 days to receive all the facts and information and then have an opportunity to settle a claim before any lawsuit can be filed.

R67 simply requires insurance companies to pay legitimate claims in a timely fashion and makes it illegal if they don't. Insurance companies following the rules will not have to fear this new law. In fact, insurance companies who are treating their customers fairly will have an edge in the marketplace because the companies that don't treat policyholders fairly will be subject to court-approved penalties.

All penalties assessed against an insurance company charged with unfair practices must be court approved under R67.

I'm Voting for R-67 State Farm caled me up three days after an accident to sign off. Which was 6:30 on Christmas eve. I had treatment for eleven months. The first seven vertbrates Were injured. The Doctor wouldn"t touch the first one, because i may not walk afterwards. I still get. head aches I never got enough to pay bills an my attorney. My truck was totoled. Then eleven months later I was hit Head on. totaled this car. Farmers Insurance. said I wasn't hurt ,and wanted me to take $20,000.Isaid I needed my med. biils paid. Farmers Insurance sued me. They even Hire Quack Doctors to State false medical records. A Doctor told me that I would need knee replace -ment. I'm disabled. In the hearings we had there, adjuster said I would have problems the rest of my life. I only got $20,000 . Medicare will have to pay my knee surgery. I still see medicial help every two week, to sleep three to four hours a night. For Farmers In-surance Company, $20,000 is the amount they come up with,no matter what your BILLS are. Listening to here adds everyone is lying ,but them. Which is a lie. Oh by the way, they went back 39 years for medicial records... It would have cost me $ 160,000 to go into court, [ I was told].

How is a law such as R-67 working in states with such a law? Have rates significantly been raised? Have those insured been dropped after filing a claim?

I am voting for Measure 67, this only enforces what the insurance companies should be doing anyway. If the insurance companies do raise rates, I think a class action lawsuit should be started.

For the first time in a Referendum, I truly feel between a rock and a hard place. Blood suckin lawyers, or life sappin insurance companies. Still thinkin on this one.

I am a victin of clain delay we had a fire jan 1 2007 that clain has not been paid as of yet.

Funny that the EXACT same post was made by a DON and a ROD. I wonder who WROTE...or daresay..where they COPIED their words

Im voting FOR R67

I have read people say things like our consumer protection act (CPA) allows for recovery of attorney fees and treble damages.

Here is the truth:

A CPA claim has five distinct elements: 1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; 2) occurring in trade or commerce; 3) affecting the public interest; 4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; and 5) proximate causation. Hangman Ridge v. Safeco Title, 105 Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) (emphasis added).

YOUR CPA CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED IF YOU SEEK ANY DAMAGES OTHER THAN DAMAGES IN "BUSINESS OR PROPOERTY"

Damages arising from personal injuries are not compensable under the CPA. Physicians Ins. Exch. v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 318, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). If the Legislature had intended to include actions for personal injury within the coverage of the CPA, it would have used a less restrictive phrase than "injured in his or her business or property." Id., citing Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wn.App. 366, 370, 773 P.2d 871 (1989).

What does this mean? You might not get recovery for inconvenience and other losses from that the tree that fell on your house a year ago, but the insurance company still is thinking about paying part of. So in the end, you can make this a crusade to prove to this insurer that your house truly has been destroyed from the tree, spend a lot of time on debating lowball offers from the insurance company, spend lots of money hiring an expert, but that time and money is not something you can claim under the CPA. You lose.

CPA CLAIMS MUST BE DISMISSED IF IT IS JUST ONE INCIDENT

Consumers also cannot rely on the CPA for their claim because their claim is unique, or so the insurers should be able to successfully argue. That is because Washington courts have determined that a single, isolated transaction, which does not involve the public will not be declared as impacting the public interest. Cordell v. Stroud, 38 Wn. App. 861, 864-65, 690 P.2d 1195 (1984). Moreover, there must be substantial potential for repetition of the act. Id.

What does this mean? If you've got an isolated contractual dispute with youtr insurer, you lose. The insurer wins.

Check the law. This is the law, not the bluster lots of people are telling you.

CONTRACT DAMAGES ARE ALSO LIMITED

Can you recover emotional damages under the CPA, under a breach of contract theory, or under any other cognizable claim theory when your insurer lowballs you and you are stuck for years with a tree on your uninhabitable house?

No.

A claim for emotional damages under the breach of contract cause of action is precluded by Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 426, 815 P.2d 1362 (1991). There, our Supreme Court held that damages for emotional distress are not allowed in breach of contract cases, except in very narrow circumstances. Gaglidari, 117 Wn.2d at 440-48.

CAN CONSUMERS RECOVER ATTORNEY'S FEES IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE THEIR INSURER TO COURT?

The Washington Supreme Court held that “[a]n insured who is compelled to assume the burden of legal action to obtain the benefit of its insurance contract is entitled to attorney fees.” Olympic S.S., 117 Wn.2d at 54. Such attorney fee awards are often called Olympic Steamship attorney fees.

But:

Olympic Steamship attorney fees are not awarded merely because an insurer challenges liability or damages. Dayton v. Farmers Ins. Group, 124 Wn.2d 277, 280, 876 P.2d 896 (1994).

So, attorney fees: can you or can you not get them? The answer is a definite maybe. It depends on whether you can prove an insurer who has offered you a fraction of what it takes to fix your house has breached their contract.

Unfortunately, facts have been obscured by rhetoric in the R-67 debate. Before anyone votes for or aganst, I hope everyone will read the law and look well past the rhetoric.

For all those who are concerned that the words "unreasonably deny" are too vague and will result in everyone and anyone bringing their cases to court, I suggest you read the actual bill. Section 3 part 5 goes into specifics about what constitutes "unreasonably deny".

is the website where you can find the actual bill.
I'm definitely voting yes!

It may have been mentioned already but, lawyers can't file a law suit without a client. So called frivolous law suits have no chance of making it to court, it is hard enough to get a legitimate claim into the courts, I know from experience.
After calling the claims adjuster many times, after months of being asked for the same information over and over, (a delay tactic). After months of no answers, I filed for binding arbitration, which was scheduled a year out. The Insurance Company did all they could do to delay it (and they did for almost another year). They made an offer the day before the arbitration hearing with a low ball offer. I declined and went forward to find in hindsight that binding arbitration is controlled by arbitrators that are used by the Insurance Companies regularly if not exclusively. The Insurance Company used a doctor as an expert witness that had 5 malpractice suits in the past. The doctor accused me of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, Etc., which was false and had nothing to do with their liability, even if it were true. One of the Insurance Company lawyers’ was caught sleeping during the hearing. The Arbitrator and the Insurance Company lawyers’ were obviously chummy, very appalling. The verdict, as you may have guessed, was not close to fair, it did not cover the cervical fusion that I was scheduled to have, due to the accident. I filed a bad faith claim against the Insurance Company 4 years ago. They have done everything to postpone it, withhold evidence, failed to respond and blatantly told us that we would have to work for a settlement. Still scheduled for Feb 2008, I have incurred over $8000.00 (my choice to assist my attorney who has a private practice and is a long time acquaintance) in costs for expert witnesses, depositions, etc.
I am still out of work and in chronic pain. If I had not had good credit to borrow money on my property I would have gone bankrupt.
With the laws the way they are now, the Insurance Company will only have to pay $10,000 for consumer protection violations, my attorney fees and costs. If I was of weak character, I would have given up a long time ago. I will never be compensated totally for my damages (due to the current laws and emotional trauma that I have endured so far).
It is very important for policy holders to see that R-67 passes, so that their attorneys can get them what they deserve or get a settlement without needing an attorney. Clients typically receive 2/3 of the award and attorneys 1/3. R-67 is a tool for policy holders to be able to make the Insurance Companies accountable for their actions. If Insurance Companies investigate and settle promptly (no fear), if they don't they may be sued for their misconduct. FYI as it is now in Washington State, we are not even getting our moneys worth from the Insurance Companies in most cases. I would prefer (if it were true) to pay higher premiums and get my claim settled promptly.
State law requires that companies submit request for rate changes to Insurance Commissioner’s office along with enough statistical and financial information to justify the rates requested. If the Insurance Commissioner’s rate analysts are satisfied with the facts provided, the law requires Insurance Commissioner’s office to approve the request. If the Insurance Commissioner’s ignored evidence that a rate was too low, they would be violating the law. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner is obligated to make sure there is enough premium collected to pay possible claims.
This shows that Insurance Companies can not raise rates without the Insurance Commissioner’s review. So all the talk of Rates going up just because R-67 passes, is a untruth. Since the Insurance Companies have plenty of money they will not be able to justify with the Insurance Commissioner a rate increase due to R-67 passing. There are Insurance Companies that treat their policy holders relatively fair and have few bad faith claims filed. Their liability would be low and therefore no justified rate could be increased. It is ridiculous to think rates will go up because Insurance Companies are paying their claims fairly.
Remember, Triple Damage Awards are not guaranteed; they would only be awarded by judges or juries in the most severe circumstances. If the Insurance Companies are guilty, I believe it will not make it to trial. Under the current laws, it is only a consumer protection violation, which does not compensate the policy holder for all damages caused by the Insurance Company’s behavior, in delaying or denying claims. An insurance policy is a contract, when a contract is breeched it should be dealt with severely. The Fact is, many people have been severely hurt by the conduct of Insurance Companies, for the sake of the all mighty dollar.
R-67 will be of no help to my case, because R-67 is not retroactive that far back. I just don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else.
I summons all of you to look at your home and auto policy, read it carefully (written by Insurance Lawyers). Also, look at who the no campaign contributors are, find one that did not contribute and get a policy with them. I Did!
Vote YES R-67.

Well I would like to thank everyone for sharing their stories about insurance companies. I have been convinced to vote for R-67. That commmercial with the blonde woman seemed convincing. . . what does she know anyway right? She's just an actress!!!

I would vote 'yes' because if not to have a lawyer, I won't be able to pay all my medical bills after the 2nd car accident. The first one was denied by SAFECO. I will definitely say 'Yes'.

I'm a Canadian (Waterloo, Ontario) doing an internship at Redmond, WA. I'm just curious into how people are thinking about R67, as I was watching how funny, unconvincing, and phony commercials done by the insurance companies favouring the rejection of R67, and the very contrasting, professional and detailed analysis done by Anderson Cooper at CNN (no offense to King 5 - you're a very good local news outlet - I watch your news every night). If I have the right to vote in the US, I will vote in favour of R67. How can you allow insurance companies to walk away not paying you for the services you purchased from them?

Re: malissa, 31 October 2007 17:47 - 100% agree with you. What does that waitress know? She's just an actress, and seems lie she's nothing more than "harrasing" her male customer - not even letting him talk. Plus, if you look at the latest commercials on these people displaying the so called "approval ads" and then saying they're all false. Well, where's the reasoning behing saying them that they're all false? Just plain words saying they're false without reasoning whatsoever - not convincing me.

I see the down side of insurance company may potentially (if not, definately) raising insurance rates shall R67 stands. But they've been doing that for ages. Why not add quality into the insuarance company for making them pay reasonably then to have them delay your pay and making your life hell on Earth?