Dear Frank,
The insurance industry has already spent $11.1 million to defeat R-67, apparently, a new state record. And yet, the race is still too close to call. I think you’ll agree that this suggests that given an even playing field, voters would approve R-67 by a comfortable margin.
So, what to do if those bastards manage to sink R-67 under a tide of dishonest ads and out-of-state cash? Pass it again. Really. If the insurance industry has the resources to spend eight figures defeating R-67, I’d make them spend it every goddamn year.
Perhaps it’s worth $11 million to the insurance industry to keep this statute off the books. But is it worth $22 million? $33 million? $44 million? Wouldn’t it be fun to find out?
Thanks for building such a strong Democratic majority. Now let’s use it.
Goldy
Only problem is we (insurance payers) would pay for their fighting it..year after year…
Why didn’t they spent that $11 million on cutting premiums? After all, it’s our money. We gave it to them to pay for claims, overhead, and a reasonable profit. If they’re doing so well they can afford to throw $11 million at a political campaign, they can afford to charge us less for our insurance. What happened to the market forces that are supposed to keep insurance rates competitive? How and why did the so-called free market allow this $11 million market inefficiency to happen?
Another fucking failure of the so-called “free market.”
@ 1
Yeah, like they were giving you a price break before, right?
I’ve been thinking this exact same thing. It’s great to see it on HA where plenty of others will see it as well.
Goldy,
Excellent suggestion. Of course, a downside of a perpetual battle of the nature you propose is that the insurance industry loves opportunities to go on the air to decry “frivolous lawsuits” and “greedy trial lawyers.” Poisoning public sentiment, and those who might sit on juries, is always an ulterior motive of the insurance industry when we see an advertising campaign like what we’ve seen with regard to R67. The insurance industry wants every American to associate “frivolous” with “lawsuit”, and “greedy” with “trial lawyer,” everytime those words are spoken. So, we see the anti-R67 campaign has goals other than a little referendum in Washington state. Nonetheless, the right thing to do is put it to the insurers anytime possible.
Ok, I’m not from here, and the populism of this state’s brilliant founders has always confounded me. That said, can someone explain why it is that the legislature can’t do this without having the people vote on it? Seriously, I really can’t sort out what things the folks in Oly can do and what things the people have to vote on. Can the leg just punt whatever they want to the voters?
Juan @6,
Actually, the legislature can just punt what ever it wants to the voters. But that’s not what happened here. The insurance industry gathered signatures for a referendum on the bill.
The state should go into the Insurance business and compete against the For Profit Insurance companies. It should set up alternative Auto, Health and Property Insurance funds that any resident of the state can opt for and pay the premiums to the state rather than to the for profit insurance companies. It probably should look into some of the other Liability Insurance funds such as Medical Malpractice and its ilk.
Also, before anybody brings up Basic Health, that is not run by the state, it is a collection of for profit insurance companies that the state subsidizes to entice the insurance companies to cover people it otherwise would not. Frankly as far as Health Insurance goes the state should set it up as the default for everyone with a 5-7% payroll tax on the employer. Most businesses would welcome the tax as it is cheaper than what they are currently paying out to provide Health Insurance to their employees. The Medical community would save money since they just need to submit bills to one agency rather than processing 100’s of different forms to get recompensed. Patients don’t have to worry about losing choice, in fact, they will now be able to access all Doctors & Hospitals in the state which would be paid the standard insurance rates.
There’s nothing to prevent motivated folks from launching an iniative to do the same thing. Snicker. THAT’D tie Eyeman’s shorts in a knot and probably piss off his partner, Dunmire, too.
7 To clarify a bit further, whatever the legislature passes, if there’s some group out there that doesn’t like it, that has the resources to recruit enough signature gatherers and pay for the air time to propaganize against it, is potentially toast. I don’t know whether this means that a coalition of robbers could mount a challenge to the prohibition against armed robbery, but evidently a coalition of insurance companies can band together and oppose a law designed to deter them from collecting premiums from their customers and not paying for anything.
If R-67 didn’t benefit trial lawyers, I’d probably not have any problem with it. If they could some how preclude the effects from benefitting the shysters, maybe it would be an easy choice for those of us that hate trial lawyers.
R-67 looks like another way to increase trial lawyers’ revenues even if it does slap down those nasty insurance guys.
11
A great achievement of the right wing is the successful campaign of labeling trial lawyers as the “scum of the earth”.
So, what to do if those bastards manage to sink R-67 under a tide of dishonest ads and out-of-state cash? Pass it again. Really. If the insurance industry has the resources to spend eight figures defeating R-67, I’d make them spend it every goddamn year.
That is why even if Tim Eyeman’s initiatives lose, they really win. Any amount of money we can take from lefty organizations while not using much or our own is a victory. roof roof
Come on, Politically Incorrect. Right now, the lawyers get paid and the costs get paid but the claimant ends up with squat because the insurer only has to pay what was actually owed. By tripling the damages, the claimant actually has an opportunity to be compensated. Furthermore, R-67 is a deterrent; in other words, lawyers will probably get less work because insurers will be less prone to screwing their customers with the threat of triple damages hanging over their heads. If you want lawyers to make less, pass R-67!
If you want lawyers to make less, pass R-67!
screw that. Vote Republican.
And then just hope you don’t get injured, Poochie.
Screw Jane and her dog…metaphorically.
Vote sane. Vote Democrat.
And vote R-67.
Funny thing is, I am a conservative. And I believe in keeping the power with the people, including those that serve on juries, and not with the corporations which now use our government to increase their bottom lines and place caps on their exposure at the expense of the living and breathing humans. And they do this under the false guise of tort reform and monikers like “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates.”
@1 Not quite true that we insurance customers would have to pay for this. My insurance company, PEMCO, is not part of the group funding the ads. So switch to PEMCO and all will be well. I really like Goldy’s idea here and I hope the legislature follows through, if necessary.
@18 Right on. There’s no need that this issue has to be a conservative vs. liberal thing. In fact, I believe that many of the abuses that conservatives cite that come form too much governmental power are also there, or worse when power in concentrated in large corporations. So, liberal or conservative, I certainly think that checking corporate power is the right thing to do for individual freedom.
Global corporations have the kind of reach that would set Hitler drooling. No one government has the potential world influence that corporations are amassing. Soon, governments will be relegated to being indentured servants of the global Inc.
If it came down to a choice between more global corporations or more global government I will pick to corporatons every time. roof roof.
So doggie, ever hear of Shakespeare?
If it wasn’t for trial lawyers, the corporations would be killing us off at will for an extra penny a share, and you all know it.
Since our government has completely given up on protecting the citizens, the courts are all that’s left.
The question is whether people want the right to access their insurance coverage without unfairly being delayed or denied.Basic Fairness!
Why should anyone have to hire an attorney to bring a claim against their own insurance company? The propaganda the companies sell is that they will be there when you need them. What happens when you need them . . .they delay or deny, then you wait and wait. And after delay you settle and take a percentage of what your claim is worth. The insurance companies know this, it’s how they make money.
They ain’t throwing in 11 million to save us money!
Uncommon Sense @ 18: ” . . . they do this under the false guise of tort reform and monikers like ‘Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates.’”
Out of the more than $11,000,000 that the anti-R67 forces have spent, about a thousand or two came from individuals, and those donors are probably insurance agents. Yet, the insurers call themselves as you’ve identified them. Glad to see a conservative who is an old-line conservative. I’ll tell you what, Barry Goldwater looks pretty good looking back compared to those calling themselves conservatives today.
I would love to see Ron Paul move up in the polls. He is the only Republican I could hitch my wagon to at this point.
GOldy – A referendum? What the fuck?
Make it a fucking “emergency”. You know… like fucking sports stadiums or providing for horse race telecasts, new guidelines on genetic cross-breeding of seeds, and a new name for an outdoor recreation committee or any of the other hundreds of fucking emergencies the girlz declared.
Why the fuck should the insurance industry have more rights than The Producers.
Declare fucking “emergency” and be done with it. The fact that they didn’t makes me wonder… when do the hearing start?
Just for reference…
Mark The Redneck’s Ballot Guide
Name: I-960
Description: Financial responsibility, accountability, and transparency
Correct Vote: Yes
Rationale: Government greed and lying is out of control
Name: Referendum 67
Description: Consumer rights for insurance
Correct Vote: Yes
Rationale: Need to level the playing field
Name: Initiative 25
Description: Elections Director in King County
Correct Vote: Yes
Rationale: Ron Sims has shown he can’t be trusted.
Name: KC Prop 1
Description: Medic One as a luxury
Correct Vote: No
Rationale: Medic One should be paid out of the general fund not as a special levy
Name: Sound Transit Prop 1
Description: Squander $160B and not fix the problem
Correct Vote: No
Rationale: Even Ron Sims sees through this one
Name: HJR 4204
Description: School taxes
Correct Vote: No
Rationale: Taxes should be difficult to raise
Name: SJR 8206
Description: Rainy day fund
Correct Vote: Yes
Rationale: Economy runs in cycles
Redneck @ 28
Whoa, boy, at least stick some ice in the Wild Turkey when you start guzzling.
I’ve mailed in all 4 of my mail in ballots. So I’ve already cancelled out the votes of a few of you…
On election day, I’m gonna drive around and demand provisional ballots. Once they’re in the system, they’ll get counted.
I’ll get about 20 votes. Seems about right…
31:
And you will be out of our hair for 15 to 45.
@11 and others:
Regarding trial lawyers: you may note that our legal/political system is set up with no government oversite or enforcement of individual rights in relationships with insurance companies.
That is the system the United States has set up. We have chosen individuals hiring lawyers over the state acting as the guardian of individual rights in their relationship with insurers. Without lawyers, there is no incentive for insurers to act in good faith. That is just our system.
In order to keep government out of the “protecting economic and civil rights” business we have the lawyer based system of rights (contract) enforcement. The wealthy and the corporations like it this way because they can ALWAYS afford top lawyers. But that is not enough for them. They are always looking for ways to stop individual ordinary citizens from having the same access to the courts they do to enforce contracts.
If not, maybe it is time to go the initiative route.
Redneck,
At least you got it right on R67. I need to ponder the mind that gets that one right and the others wrong (although one or two others are pretty close calls).
mirror @ 33
Precisely. And, the contingent fee, despite how it is condemned by the insurance industry and Bushites, is the only way many Americans have any chance of rectifying the wrongs that they experience.
And let’s not forget that while the Washington State Medical Association is demonizing greedy trial lawyers, their members, specifically orthopedic and neurology specialists are demanding that plaintiffs cough up $6,000.00 up front for an hour or two of testimony in court. Now, who’s being greedy?
No way would I vote for R67. If you think insurance fraud is bad now (mostly perpetrated by lefties,especially lefty radio hosts) it will be twice as bad if R67 is passed.
Explain how R-67 would increase fraud, Dog.
My Left Foot says:
31:
And you will be out of our hair for 15 to 45.
If they actually enforced this law in KC half the liberals in Seattle would be in prison. hehe
Goldy is 100% right on R67.
Dog @ 38
Canines can’t vote. Go lick yourself, if you can find your balls.
39
First of all insurance fraud will never be completly eliminated. It can only be contained and controlled to a reasonable level. R-67 allows lawyers to bring lawsuits using the very low legal standard of “unreasonableness” to impose the very high liability of triple punitive damages. The lucrative incentive for trial lawyers to file more and more lawsuits is evident. Every insurance claim will be a potential lawsuit, with insurance companies forced to settle for higher payout amounts rather than risk costly litigation. This will cause insurance companies to pay out on claims that normally would be investigated. It is the simple ying/yang effect. Get it??
It’s bizarre and otherworldly to hear conservatives wanting to vote for something that will benefit themselves. Next thing you know, they’ll want a living wage and a stable world.
Nah! It’ll never happen.
If R67 changed “triple punitive damages” to “triple actual damages” the yes crowd would have better leverage in this debate. What are punitive damages and who determines them? Is hot coffee spilled on an old ladies lap worth two million in punitive damages? You tell me. And liberals wonder why insurance costs are so high.
You have failed to provide any basis for your use of the word “fraud”. If the case has no merit (i.e. is fraudulent), the penalties of R-67 will never be realized, and the plaintiff (and even the attorney) faces sanctions by the court. Court is too expensive a process for most attorneys to take longshot gambles when they have to advance thousands of dollars in costs. And remember, it is not lawyers who initiate the process. An insured who is being screwed over by their insurer hires the lawyer.
Dog, do you know that McDonalds was given an opportunity to settle that coffee case for $20,000.00 and declined? Stupid is as stupid does.
Out of curiosity Dog, how many insurance fraud cases are you aware of in the State of Washington in the last year? I would like to know what numbers you are working from.
Mark @31,
Since you’ve admitted to vote fraud, I suppose you won’t mind me passing on your IP to the Prosecuting Attorney’s office without a subpoena?
And one more point, Dog. If an insurance company considers your medical expenses unreasonable (their subjective determination), they cut you off. Why shouldn’t the insurer be subject to an “unreasonableness” standard in determining whether they should be hit with a penalty in court. What’s good for the goose is good for the Dog.
Don’t buy any of it. Just take that sleaze Childers at face value. She insists that R-67 isn’t needed. Since all any of us have to do if our greedy insurance company refuses to cover us is hire a trial lawyer and sue them!
So if we buy the sleazy rhetoric of “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates”, then we must conclude that defeating R-67 will result in more lawsuits. Not fewer.
Passage of R-67 results in full and timely settlement of claims, without the involvement of trial lawyers.
Imagine that! Without intending to, the greedy insurance scum bags actually told the truth for once.
Court is too expensive a process for most attorneys to take longshot gambles when they have to advance thousands of dollars in costs.
You will not convince me of that. The dream of too many trial lawyers is to “hit that one big case”.
@8 “The state should go into the Insurance business and compete against the For Profit Insurance companies. It should set up alternative Auto, Health and Property Insurance funds that any resident of the state can opt for and pay the premiums to the state rather than to the for profit insurance companies.”
B-b-but that would be SOSHALISM!!! Can’t have that, can we? Because, as we all know, soshalism DOESN’T WORK whereas the FREE MARKET solves all problems!!! For examples of the glory of privately-owned, for-profit capitalism, see e.g.:
Example 1 – Public Power vs. Private Power
Exhibit A: Private Power: Enron
Exhibit B: Public Power: City Light; PUDs
Example 2 – Credit Unions vs. Private Banks
Exhibit A: Banks – Sneaky fees, extra charges, low savings rates, high loan rates, government bailouts
Exhibit B: Credit Unions – Low cost services, competitive savings and loan rates, few if any collapses
Example 3: Government vs. Private Health Care
Exhibit A: Private health insurance – expensive, gaps in coverage, refusals to pay, 25% overhead costs
Exhibit B: Medicare – Affordable, covers everyone over 65, no claims hassles, 1/2% overhead costs
Yep, the verdict is in: SOSHALISM ROCKS, GREEDY BUSINESSMEN SUCK!!! I like your idea of putting the state in the insurance business to compete with the bloodsucking private insurance companies, who extracted umpty-times as much wealth from our pockets as trial lawyers ever did.
And how many trial lawyers have you had on the couch analyzing their dreams? You keep throwing wild conclusory accusations around without providing any support. Just like the Reject 67 ads!
I like Castro’s insurance system better than ours. You don’t pay anything, and if someone steals your donkey cart, you get it back and they shoot the guy who stole it.
And remember, it is not lawyers who initiate the process. An insured who is being screwed over by their insurer hires the lawyer.
Yeah, the law ads on the late night TV are just there as a public service. You know, just letting you know that they are there if you need em. heehhehehe
@10 “coalition of robbers … coalition of insurance companies”
Isn’t this a redundant phrase?
And insurance companies do not advertise? Please….
You have failed to provide any basis for your use of the word “fraud”. If the case has no merit (i.e. is fraudulent),
What are talking about? There are plenty of cases that have merit that involve insurance fraud. Ask any insurance adjuster involved in home owners insurance how rich a plumber becomes on a theft claim.
Uncommon Sense,
I like Ron Paul’s stuff, too. I’m going to write-him-in for the 2008 election. There’s no way in hell that I’ll vote for any of the Democrats or the main Republicans running for president in 2008.
“Fraud” and “have merit” are mutually exclusive concepts. But to the insurance industry, every claim is fraudulent, even if it has merit. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Dog.
Uncommon Sense says:
And insurance companies do not advertise? Please….
They should. The lowest price and best service win. I hope they are cut throat about it too. I am not against all lawyers, just most of them. I think the country would be better off as a whole if we had a lot less of them.
“Fraud” and “have merit” are mutually exclusive concepts.
In KCRE voter fraud you are correct. But they are not mutually exclusive in insurance claims. See comment 59.
@11 Please post what your occupation is so we can outlaw it and stir up public animosity against it.
As it happens, I was a government lawyer, and have never practiced tort law. However, in order to expose your brainless diatribe for what it is, let’s first examine what contribution trial lawyers DON’T make to society. Then we’ll talk about what contribution they DO make to society.
Part 1 — What Trial Lawyers Don’t Contribute to Society
Frivolous lawsuits. Damn few lawyers file frivolous lawsuits because it exposes them to financial sanctions and disciplinary action. Lawyers have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and file a lawsuit only if there is reasonable basis in fact and law for the claim. Lawyers who ignore get driven out of business and/or disbarred in short order.
Preventing lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits doesn’t entirely prevent frivolous lawsuits, however. Lawsuits filed by self-represented ignoramuses continue to be a problem. SLAPP suits by developers, predatory corporations, and other deep-pocketed bullies also are a potential threat to public peace and order, although new laws protecting citizens from SLAPP suits and imposing sanctions on those who file them have helped get this problem under control.
On the other hand, frivolous motions and delaying tactics in legitimate lawsuits are not under control. That’s why we need R-67. These tactics usually are perpetrated by insurance companies to evade their contractual obligations to their policyholders. As long as this unethical behavior continues to go unregulated and unpunished, it will continue unabated, as it is highly profitable for the perpetrators.
Part 2 – What Trial Lawyers Contribute to Society
First of all, our tort system gives people an alternative to revenge. Let’s say big corporations and the dumbass WingNuts(TM) who goosestep for them at the ballot box got their way and severely limited or eliminated your right to sue those who negligently or intentionally damage your property and/or injure or kill you and/or your loved ones. Take the fucking Republican bastard in a speeding SUV who ran over my mommy on Greenlake Way, for example. (sniffle) (sob) (choke) I sued him, and if his insurance company hadn’t delivered a year’s supply of carrots to my hole, I probably would have hunted him down and eviscerated him with my razor-sharp claws so he would die slowly. If there isn’t a legal system to settle grievances, than people (and critters) will find other ways to get even. So, trial lawyers help preserve public peace and order.
Trial lawyers also give the little and powerless people access to the courts and legal system. By working on a contingency fee basis, their services are available to all our citizens, even the poorest, even those with no money. And a good trial lawyer levels the playing field because he brings resources to bear that give his client an even chance with the biggest insurance company or corporation. The contingency fee system also discourages lawyers from taking weak cases to court — trust me on this. If the client doesn’t have a valid claim and the trial lawyer presses ahead anyway, the lawyer is going to lose his ass financially. Taking bad cases to court is a really, really, lousy business decision for the trial lawyer.
The fact ordinary people have legal rights that can be enforced by trial lawyers even against rich and powerful corporations and individuals helps keep rich and powerful corporations and individuals on their best behavior, and this is good for society. XYZ Corp. is less likely to sell dangerous or defective products when they know hungry trial lawyers are lurking out there watching their every move. Developers are less likely to run roughshod over homeowners or drive their bulldozers over your lawn if they’ve been sued a couple times for that by “greedy trial lawyers.”
Discussion — The “Greed” of Trial Lawyers
Okay, now I have a question for you insurance companies and goosestepping WingNuts(TM) who like to use the adjective “greedy” in conjunction with the noun “trial lawyers.”
The question is, if trial lawyers file legitimate claims on behalf of clients who have been wronged by the defendants, and get paid for their time, business risks, and valuable services, why is their expectation of getting paid for their work “greed”?
Or, to put it another way, why are trial lawyers “greedy” for wanting to get paid for their work, but insurance companies, real estate developers, corporations, etc., who steal from their customers and shareholders aren’t “greedy” but are only “businessmen” trying to exercise their GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BECOME BILLIONAIRES AND PAY NO TAXES ON THEIR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR INCOMES? We could get into an interesting discussion here that would involve use of such terms as “hypocrisy” and “crooks” and “greedy bastards” and “Republicans” (all in the same sentence) but it probably suffices to say that people who call trial lawyers “greedy” are themselves — 9 times out of 10 — greedy bastards and FUCKING HYPOCRITES.
Any questions?
Whenever I hear someone say “greedy trial lawyers,” I wonder who they cheated today.
You say that now, Dog…until you need one. And I will trust a lawyer who is an advocate for a real human being as opposed to an insurance adjuster who has marching orders from his/her dark master to deny and delay claims so that the faceless corporate entity can hold onto the money they owe and squeeze every last bit of investment income out of the market while you suffer a costly court process lasting years. And that is why the insurers made record profits following Katrina. Even Trent Lott had to hire an attorney so that he could get his claim resolved and his home fixed.
@12 ” great achievement of the right wing is the successful campaign of labeling trial lawyers as the “scum of the earth”.
This is a misconception fostered by WingNut (TM) mythology. The real “scum of the earth” are dogs.
Roger Rabbit, had I known you were going to post that brilliant argument, I would have let you have the final word. Well-put.
@15 “Vote Republican.”
This is why it’s illegal for dogs to vote. Dogs are too stupid to vote.
#15 also shows why we need a Democratic prosecutor in King County. Jane Balogh belongs in jail. Her dog needs to be euthanized! Dogs are criminals! They should all be killed!
@16 “Uncommon Sense says: And then just hope you don’t get injured, Poochie.”
Oh yes please God yes yes yes, pleeeease run over that damn dog with a car! Or, better yet, make it die slowly from an agonizing disease! No mercy for dogs! Especially WingNut (TM) dogs.
@17 “Screw Jane and her dog…metaphorically.”
I have a better idea: Screw Jane with her dog, non-metaphorically.
Now, I have a wonderful miniature pinscher curled up next to me who is loyal and true. And she support R-67. So, don’t paint all canines with such a broad brush. It could be that Dog has rabies or distemper. That would certainly explain the illogical ramblings…
I have a better idea, Goldy. If R-67 is defeated because insurance companies don’t like the idea of paying triple damages when they deny legitimate claims, let’s scrap R-67 and pass a law allowing juries to award plaintiffs unlimited punitive damages against insurance companies when they deny legitimate claims. This way, they won’t have to pay triple damages.
66
I am not against all lawyers. They definitely have a place in a free society. In fact they are essential. Do insurance companies screw their customers? Absolutely. Is R67 the a reasonable way to fix it? No, not even close.
@24 “Since our government has completely given up on protecting the citizens, the courts are all that’s left.”
But wait, the courts are part of our government — the one part not controlled by Wingnuts (TM) Inc. and they’re working on that. This is why we can’t let BIAW, who represents Greedy Developers (TM) Inc., buy our courts.
Hey Roger…. ROOF OFF.
Well I am off. I have got to take a crap in Ron Sims yard and go to bed now. Night all.
@28 “Declare fucking ’emergency’ and be done with it.”
Okay.
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
Whereas Mark the Welshing Redneck bet Goldy $100 that I-912 would lose by 15 points;
Whereas I-912 won;
Whereas Mark the Welshing Redneck has failed to pay said bet;
Whereas payment of said bet is two years past due;
Whereas Mark the Welshing Redneck is a liar and a welsher;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT MARK THE WELSHING REDNECK’S DISHONESTY AND LACK OF CHARACTER IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY; AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID WELSHING REDNECK HAS NO CREDIT OR CREDIBILITY ON THIS BLOG.
Now go pet your armadillo and fuck yourself, welsher.
For those of you who are new here, Mark Redneck is a 12-year-old retardo who has never produced anything except diaper messes and hot air.
243 This bullshit is not even worth responding to. R-67 doesn’t expose insurance companies to liability for investigating claims.
Roger Rabbit says:
243 This bullshit is not even worth responding to. R-67 doesn’t expose insurance companies to liability for investigating claims.
Where did I say that? It DETERS insurance companies from investigating fraudulent claims. R67 is too one sided, unbalanced. Danm rabbit has been eating the carrots I shit on last week again and it’s effecting his brain. Geeesh.
@45 “If R67 changed ‘triple punitive damages’ to ‘triple actual damages’ the yes crowd would have better leverage in this debate.”
Thanks for posting this, dog, because I’m now going to show everyone what an ignorant, uninformed, illiterate, dumbass you are.
“NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 48.30 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Any first party claimant to a policy of insurance who is unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits by any insurer may bring an action in the superior court of this state to recover the actual damages sustained, together with the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, as set forth in subsection (3) of this section.
(2) The superior court may, after finding that an insurer has acted unreasonably in denying a claim for coverage or payment of benefits or has violated a rule in subsection (5) of this section, increase the total award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages.”
Okay, so I will concede the actual language of R-67 doesn’t say “triple actual damages,” it says “three times the actual damages” — which works out to be 50% less.
Most people probably assume the penalty award is three times the amount of insurance benefits that should have been paid. Wrong! If you read the actual legal language of R-67 carefully, it gives a judge discretion, upon finding an insurance company unreasonably denied a claim, to the TOTAL AWARD to an amount not exceeding three times the actual damages. The penalty is only double the actual damages.
To illustrate how this works, let’s say the actual damages are $5,000. In this case, the total permissible award is $5,000 x 3 = $15,000. So the plaintiff gets $5,000 actual damages + $10,000 penalty damages. The $10,000 penalty is double, not triple, the actual damages.
It should also be remembered that the “triple damages” is a maximum, not a guarantee. Judges who find an insurance company unreasonably denied a claim have discretion to award up to triple damages, or nothing at all, or something in between. This allows the judge to penalize the insurance company and compensate the insurance beneficiary by an amount the judge deems appropriate taking into considerations such factors as the length of the delay, the consequential losses incurred by the beneficiary as a result of the delay, and so on.
It is entirely appropriate to require insurers who unreasonably deny a claim to pay extra to the insured, because the insured often has incurred additional costs and losses as a result of the denial or delay, in addition to the legal costs of forcing the company to honor its contractual promises.
R-67 is, if anything, mild in terms of punishing welshing insurance companies. It does little more than make wronged policyholders financially whole. The policyholder gets little or nothing for the time, aggravation, and effort spent making the company honor its policy.
And then there is the free market. If you’ve gotten lousy claims service from an insurance company, walk away and never do business with them again, and tell all your friends and neighbors. Word of mouth is powerful. Most of us choose banks, insurance companies, doctors and lawyers, dentists, etc. based on word-of-mouth recommendations of people we know. Don’t hesitate to bad-mouth a bad insurance company. That’s how free markets are supposed to operate. It’s called free speech. As long as what you say is true, it isn’t libel, and they can’t sue you for it. So keep your documentation of how they screwed you.
@82 I quote your words posted @43:
“This will cause insurance companies to pay out on claims that normally would be investigated.”
@82 “It DETERS insurance companies from investigating fraudulent claims.”
Bullshit.
It deters insurance companies from fraudulently claiming that claims are fraudulent.
I’ve had personal experience with this. I recently settled a claim against a parking lot speeder who hit me with her SUV. The driver had no insurance so the claim was against my own uninsured motorist policy that I paid premiums for.
My insurance company refused to pay and the case went to trial. My doctor testified the accident caused the injuries in question, and explained how and why his medical observations and test established that fact.
After hearing our evidence, the insurance company lawyer had the balls to accuse my doctor of “malpractice” and accuse me of “fraud” (he used the word) in asserting the injuries in question were caused by getting hit by the car in question. All I said was I relied on my doctor’s opinion of what caused my injuries, and not being a doctor, I wasn’t qualified to make that assessment myself.
To prove his assertion that my claim was “fraudulent,” the insurance company lawyer brought forth an expert witness who had some fancy degrees. On the witness stand, the insurance company’s expert witness refused to say getting hit by the car didn’t cause my injuries. In addition, the insurance company’s expert witness indicated he had no problem with my doctor’s diagnosis or opinion, and offered no alternative theory as to what might have caused my injuries if getting hit by the car didn’t cause them.
Needless to say, we won that case. Too bad R-67 wasn’t in effect because an additional award of up to double the medical expenses I was awarded, which were in the ballpark of $10,000, would have been reasonable compensation for the time, effort, aggravation, and the 5 years I spent trying to get my insurance company to fulfill the contract they made with me when they collected premiums from me. A $20,000 penalty aware is not enough to get me to go through that experience again, but like I say, would have been a reasonable compensation for having beenput through it by an insurance company I promptly dumped and will never do business with again. Oh, and I didn’t appreciate being called a crook, and my doctor didn’t appreciate being accused of malpractice, by these lying bastards. That’s not what I call good customer service.
This state needs R-67.
American Commerce Insurance Company.
@88 No representation is made that there is, or is not, any connection between #87 and #88. Comment #88 is a random post of four words randomly selected from the dictionary. Like all great art, its interpretation is left to the imagination of the beholder.
JCH is a nazi.
@90 No representation is made that there is, or is not, any connection between #87 and #90. Comment #90 is a random post of four words randomly selected from the dictionary. Like all great art, its interpretation is left to the imagination of the beholder.
Man I love kicking JCH in the shins.
@88 is stream-of-consciousness literature in the tradition of Joyce and Faulkner. What you do is write down the first words that pop into your head. Then you leave it to the reader to associate them with something. It is for the reader to find meaning in your words. Being an author is hard enough work as it is without having to come up with meanings or explain things! If readers aren’t smart enough to figure out what you wrote, then they probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote. As Mark Twain said, “It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve done it thousands of times.” If you can’t figure out the meaning of this, you have no business smoking in the first place.
“WingNutz, Inc.™” I’ve settled on this version of the ™.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/wr.htm
and my name is White Rose. No offense intended.
The current law treats the insurers like shoplifters, but if they get caught, instead of calling the police, you just ask them to pay for what they stole. When they don’t get caught they get away with it.
I’m a trial lawyer. I sue corporations and insurance companies to stop them from mistreating people. Why do you think corporations are careful not to injure you? (Hint: most of the time it’s not because they care)
#96: Steve, as a rare part of the free market system that hasn’t yet been squelched by big corporations, you should feel proud that they are expending this much money to make damn sure that they squash legitimate lawsuits against them.
You know how ‘frivolous’ real justice can be.
What benefit does this R-67 really offer over current law?
It’s already illegal for an insurance co. to deny valid claims.
Attorneys are already engaged over disputes. It seems to me that this just pads the potential payout for instances where a claim was unjustly denied.
Has any law like this, in other states, had any real effect of holding insurance co. more accountable? or has it just cuased higher rates for consumers….
I still go back to……It is already illegal to deny valid claims. How does this R-67 improve that? It doesn’t.
Does 3X damages mean that there is a cap?
@29 it should read Mark the dumbass Goldstein … your dumbass voting guide has us voting for Init. 25 because we can’t trust Ron Sims; but we’re supposed to vote no on prop 1 because Ron Sims can “see through this one”. Ron Sims is a fucktard. This region needs prop 1 … it doesn’t need advice from a contradicting redneck. btw, vote yes on r-67.