My last post commented on Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Act is up for public vote as Referendum 67. Check out the web sites advocating approval or rejection of the measure.
The “Approve 67″ web site struck me as a bit demagogic–the main page shows a young girl clutching a teddy bear being comforted by (apparently) her father. The next shot is a man in a wheelchair, face cast sullenly downward. (Ostensibly suffering from insurance company malfeasance.) The final shot is a generic image of an emergency clinic. Then, under the “Take Action” column on your left there’s a link to “Share Your Insurance Horror Story.” (As of this writing there is a grand total of three “horror” stories.)
Under the endorsements tab, trial lawyers are notably absent–at least from the list. There are, however, multiple labor organizations as well as the Washington State Democratic Party. Under the “About Referendum 67″ tab [with my comment]:
If an insurance company unfairly denies a legitimate claim, your only recourse is to sue. But if you win, the only thing they have to pay is the amount of the original claim [not true, just ask millionaire prankster dentist Robert Woo.] Referendum 67 creates an incentive [there already are incentives: coverage by waiver or estoppel, Olympic Steamship attorney fees and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA)] to treat legitimate claims fairly by allowing the court to assess penalties if an insurance company illegally denies or delays payment of a legitimate claim.
Referendum 67 would help to ensure that the insurance industry honor their commitments to treat all policyholders honestly by making it against the law [it's already against the law, silly--see the existing RCW and WAC] to unreasonably delay or deny legitimate claims.
The News Tribune in its story Let’s not try to fix an insurance industry that’s not broken says:
That the system is working well is illustrated by a storm of a different sort: the windstorm that smashed into Western Washington earlier this year. Within less than four months of the event, according to a recent study, 90 percent of the 42,000 claims were settled, for $170 million in compensation. Most of the remaining claims remained unsettled due to lack of qualified contractors or the time needed to rebuild homes. Only three complaints were filed with the insurance commissioner’s office.
I don’t know if I would characterize this legislation as a jackpot for trial lawyers, but it’s probably unnecessary and will increase the frequency of litigated first party claims at the greater expense of the insurance paying public. It’s up to Washington voters to get it right.
Tagged as:
loser pays,
Seattle,
Washington state
