Comments on: Hey Buddy, Can You Spare $650 Million?

By: WCB

WCB — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:50:27 +0000

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”?

By: Shelly Speir

Shelly Speir — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:36:18 +0000

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).

By: PS

PS — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:35:11 +0000

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…