Hey Buddy, Can You Spare $650 Million?
September 25th, 2007 by 
Jeannine C
That’s what Washington residents will be asking, if a motion to repeal Referendum 67 fails in November.Â
Originally passed into law by the state legislature without going to voters, Referendum 67 allows consumers to collect triple damages if an insurer is found to have unreasonably denied a claim or to have violated unfair practice rules. That so significantly increases the risk to issue insurance policies in Washington that premiums are expected to rise up to $650 million dollars.
Supporters claim that R-67 helps consumers by severely penalizing Washington insurance companies that fail to treat everyone fairly and equally. Opponents are concerned that the law will result in frivolous lawsuits, resulting in higher insurance rates for everyone, which has happened in the five other states which have similar laws.
Honestly, how many people do you know who were happy with an insurance settlement from an incident, or think they received a great rate? I know I wasn’t happy with the check I received after a woman rear-ended my car at a stoplight. Suing could only have been marginally better, so it wasn’t worth the effort. But if I could have received triple the payout, who knows? I might have considered it.Â
Bottom line – it seems as if the only ones who will benefit from this law are the trial lawyers.Â
Listen to Hey Buddy, Can You Spare $650 Million?
Posted in Insurance, Insurance Information by State | 
3 Comments »
September 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Clearly this poster has not read the law or she would realize that her payout from a tortfeasor’s insurance company is not what this law addresses; or perhaps this is another attempt to mislead anyone who might happen across these comments. R67 addresses abuses by FIRST PARTY insurer’s. In other words, if her PIP insurer, for example, had wrongfully denied her benefits after her collision, R67 would give her recourse against her insurer.
If she can’t get her facts right and cannot understand/will not read the law, how can anything else she has to say be credible?
PS: Washington legislators are elected by the voters…
September 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Don’t confuse what a third party insurance carrier would pay as damages caused by an accident, as opposed to what your own (first party) insurance would pay under your Personal Injury Protection coverage. R-67 is meant to ensure that your own company doesn’t unfairly deny you benefits. It has nothing to do with what a third party may pay to settle a case. The triple damages would be awarded only if your own company denied your legitimate claim for PIP benefits (such as payment of your doctor’s bills or wage loss).
September 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Jeannine,
What group of insurance companies do you work for? The same ones who routinely lowball, stonewall, delay and underpay legitimate claims because there is no penalty to prevent that behavior? Insurance claimants are legally entitled to prompt AND fair payment, the claimant shouldn’t have to pick one or the other. Or is a “fast nickel” supposed to “beat a slow dime”?