In 2006 there were about 4.2 Million cars insured in Washington and about 1.3 Million homes. There were less than 2900 complaints to the commissioners office. Of course that doesnt include the 1 or 2 million cars in Washington that are uninsured, a problem Mike Kreidler doesnt have anything to say about. Anyway, back to the urban myth that ‘everybody knows someone who has been ripped off by insurance’, the slogan used by the pro R67 campaign. Actually, I run into very few people who have been ripped off by the industry. And since I see people every day about insurance, you would think my experience would be different. Back to the numbers – on the commissioners beautiful, expansive, full of big pictures and everything, the commissioner opines about the nature of the few complaints he gets. ‘Most people don’t understand whats covered on their policy’ he beams. So we just passed a law that, unlike the rally cry of the leeching trial lawyers, really isnt necessary. I truly think that fool is in full support of legislating himself out of a job. There doesn’t seem to much left for him regarding his job description. Only in Washington.
Your one sided biased reporting of this election ignores the truth of what happened in Washington state. The insurance industry engaged in a smear campaign that at its height accused our insurance commissioner of “twisting” the facts. It was a shameful campaign and the voters saw through it. With a coalition of over 100 consumer groups and endorsements by every major newspaper in Washington State, the Approve67 side whooped the insurance industry despite the $11.5M it paid to try overturn this law.
Karen Koehler
Whoever runs against the Washington Insurance Commissioner in the next election already has all the ammunition they need for their campaign. What was particularly shameful about the Referendum 67 campaign was the insurance commissioner singing the blues about how insurance companies deny legitimate claims. Excuse me, but isn’t it HIS JOB to make sure that insurance companies follow the law? Contrary to the rhetoric of the Approve 67 campaign, Washington State has a Fair Claims Practices Act and numerous other laws that prohibit the arbitrary denial of claims. In the process of supporting Referendum 67, our insurance commissioner has simply admitted that he is totally ineffective in performing his job and protecting insurance consumers.
While I feel bad for the people that voted against this POS legislation, I hope all the consumer are bitten hard in the @ss in the form of increased costs, premiums, etc. Looks like they will have to learn the hard way.
..I find it interesting that while the people of the Evergreen State were putting in motion legislation that will get into the deep pockets of those d#$a$$ insurance companies…..and provide the trial attorneys with an enhanced revenue stream, they again refused to take any action on fixing the transportation system in the state and the Puget Sound.
As gridlock continues to its ultimate conclusion, all those cars will be stopped on the roads, no accidents will occur, no claims will be filed, there will be no “bad faith” and the attorneys will have to move on to their next revenue stream.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Let’s put together an initiative titled, “Legal Fairness for Washington Residents.” It will allow Washington consumers to collect triple damages if their attorney unreasonably represents them or violates BAR standards. I will wager that trial lawyers do not believe it to be a good idea if it endangers their pockets.
For every $100 of P&C premium, 12% goes to attorney fees! They make as much or even more from premium dollars than most P&C insurance agents, Heck of deal, should have gone to law school, darn.
T,
I’ll be the first to admit that Insurance agencys do collect a commission. Heck, anyone in a sales related job will admit to that.
What you fail to understand is that the average layperson may not understand their policy, or if they direct-write their own policies (ie Geico), what they are purchasing. Insurance agents are there to help people understand what they are purchasing, translate the policy language to something they understand, and to help people get the coverages they need.
But while agents in Washington may start to make more in commission, that will be offset by the fact that they themselves will have to pay more for insurance. Also they will be having to answer questions from thier insureds as to why the insurance rates went up.
I suspect that you if you asked, you would find a fair number of agents in the 43% of the voters that said no to this Referendum.
I have never understood the “frivolous lawsuit” lie. The last thing a lawyer on a contingent fee wants is a frivolous lawsuit, or maybe a lot of them. It’s a ticket to bankruptcy. Does anyone really believe that insurance companies just roll over and pay frivolous claims? Do people think that only claimants have lawyers or that only plaintiffs have good lawyers or that only plaintiffs’ lawyers are so tricky that they can fool jurors, or that regular people become idiots when they become jurors?
This haws nothing to do with lawyers. It is insurance companies being infuriated by juries. They don’t like being held accountable by regular people they can’t buy. Remember, this is America.
Im starting to realize that the more consumer protections…the higher the premiums….the more money agents make….
In 2006 there were about 4.2 Million cars insured in Washington and about 1.3 Million homes. There were less than 2900 complaints to the commissioners office. Of course that doesnt include the 1 or 2 million cars in Washington that are uninsured, a problem Mike Kreidler doesnt have anything to say about. Anyway, back to the urban myth that ‘everybody knows someone who has been ripped off by insurance’, the slogan used by the pro R67 campaign. Actually, I run into very few people who have been ripped off by the industry. And since I see people every day about insurance, you would think my experience would be different. Back to the numbers – on the commissioners beautiful, expansive, full of big pictures and everything, the commissioner opines about the nature of the few complaints he gets. ‘Most people don’t understand whats covered on their policy’ he beams. So we just passed a law that, unlike the rally cry of the leeching trial lawyers, really isnt necessary. I truly think that fool is in full support of legislating himself out of a job. There doesn’t seem to much left for him regarding his job description. Only in Washington.
They’ll be in court every day now, instead of every week.
I feel if these referendums were written so average voters could understand the language, these things would not happe.
Your one sided biased reporting of this election ignores the truth of what happened in Washington state. The insurance industry engaged in a smear campaign that at its height accused our insurance commissioner of “twisting” the facts. It was a shameful campaign and the voters saw through it. With a coalition of over 100 consumer groups and endorsements by every major newspaper in Washington State, the Approve67 side whooped the insurance industry despite the $11.5M it paid to try overturn this law.
Karen Koehler
But this was written by lawyers to help lawyers. They couldn’t write it so people wouldn’t vote for it.
Whoever runs against the Washington Insurance Commissioner in the next election already has all the ammunition they need for their campaign. What was particularly shameful about the Referendum 67 campaign was the insurance commissioner singing the blues about how insurance companies deny legitimate claims. Excuse me, but isn’t it HIS JOB to make sure that insurance companies follow the law? Contrary to the rhetoric of the Approve 67 campaign, Washington State has a Fair Claims Practices Act and numerous other laws that prohibit the arbitrary denial of claims. In the process of supporting Referendum 67, our insurance commissioner has simply admitted that he is totally ineffective in performing his job and protecting insurance consumers.
Sounds like Marty has sour grapes.
While I feel bad for the people that voted against this POS legislation, I hope all the consumer are bitten hard in the @ss in the form of increased costs, premiums, etc. Looks like they will have to learn the hard way.
..I find it interesting that while the people of the Evergreen State were putting in motion legislation that will get into the deep pockets of those d#$a$$ insurance companies…..and provide the trial attorneys with an enhanced revenue stream, they again refused to take any action on fixing the transportation system in the state and the Puget Sound.
As gridlock continues to its ultimate conclusion, all those cars will be stopped on the roads, no accidents will occur, no claims will be filed, there will be no “bad faith” and the attorneys will have to move on to their next revenue stream.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Let’s put together an initiative titled, “Legal Fairness for Washington Residents.” It will allow Washington consumers to collect triple damages if their attorney unreasonably represents them or violates BAR standards. I will wager that trial lawyers do not believe it to be a good idea if it endangers their pockets.
For every $100 of P&C premium, 12% goes to attorney fees! They make as much or even more from premium dollars than most P&C insurance agents, Heck of deal, should have gone to law school, darn.
T,
I’ll be the first to admit that Insurance agencys do collect a commission. Heck, anyone in a sales related job will admit to that.
What you fail to understand is that the average layperson may not understand their policy, or if they direct-write their own policies (ie Geico), what they are purchasing. Insurance agents are there to help people understand what they are purchasing, translate the policy language to something they understand, and to help people get the coverages they need.
But while agents in Washington may start to make more in commission, that will be offset by the fact that they themselves will have to pay more for insurance. Also they will be having to answer questions from thier insureds as to why the insurance rates went up.
I suspect that you if you asked, you would find a fair number of agents in the 43% of the voters that said no to this Referendum.
I have never understood the “frivolous lawsuit” lie. The last thing a lawyer on a contingent fee wants is a frivolous lawsuit, or maybe a lot of them. It’s a ticket to bankruptcy. Does anyone really believe that insurance companies just roll over and pay frivolous claims? Do people think that only claimants have lawyers or that only plaintiffs have good lawyers or that only plaintiffs’ lawyers are so tricky that they can fool jurors, or that regular people become idiots when they become jurors?
This haws nothing to do with lawyers. It is insurance companies being infuriated by juries. They don’t like being held accountable by regular people they can’t buy. Remember, this is America.