Referendum 67 deserves a 'yes' vote

The Olympian • Published September 19, 2007

Turn on almost any local television channel and you will see repeated advertisements against Referendum 67. The TV ads, financed with almost $8 million in contributions from mostly out-of-state insurance companies, vilify trial lawyers and urge voters to oppose Ref. 67 on the Nov. 6 general election ballot.

Don't be fooled.

Strip away all the rhetoric — from lawyers and insurers — and you will find that at its core this ballot proposition is about accountability and consumer protection. That's why The Olympian's editorial board recommends a "yes" vote on Ref. 67.

The referendum would make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny claims filed by their clients. The measure allows for treble damages plus attorney fees when a judge or jury has concluded that the insurance company denied a legitimate claim. The measure applies to auto, home, business, property and long term care insurance claims, but does not apply to health insurance coverage, where consumers are already covered by the Patients' Bill of Rights.

As the debate sharpens over the next few weeks, each side will trot out poster children for their respective campaigns.

Ref. 67 opponents will point to a dentist who was wrongfully denied coverage by his insurance company and received a $1 million claim after he sued.

Line attorneys' pockets

Opponents will argue that the insured already have multiple avenues to hold their insurance companies accountable and that Ref. 67 will only line the pockets of trial attorneys and result in higher insurance premiums.

Ref. 67 supporters will have their outrage stories as well — the Dairy Queen owner whose roof was damaged and the insurance company that refused to pay his claim. After two years of litigation the courts sided with the restaurant owner, but all he was entitled to under the law was the replacement cost for the roof — in other words the amount of money the insurance company should have paid in the first place.

Proponents will argue that Washington is one of only five states with no penalty when the insurance industry intentionally denies a valid claim.