Congratulations to Cheryl Tucker at The News Tribune. In the papers Inside the Editorial Page blog, Tucker describes the WSTLA letter-writing campaign against Referendum 67.
The letter writers fail to identify themselves as lawyers (or staff of legal firms), although a quick check of Google and the Yellow Pages confirms that that's exactly what they are. You'd think with all those law degrees between them that the mouthpieces could come up with their own words and not have to crib.
Why are lawyers so intent on passing Ref. 67? It might have something to do with how the measure calls for up to triple damages plus attorney fees for claimants if an insurer is found to have "unreasonably" denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits.
She adds that the biggest opponents to the R-67 are insurance companies. AWB and a lot of business groups also oppose the measure, figuring it will drive up insurance costs, hurt small businesses, and lead to a deluge of opportunistic litigation and hurried settlements.
She also says:
I fully expect we'll get a similar deluge of anti-67 letters, and they're likely to be maddeningly similar, too.
I hope not. We can do better. For a good (and brief) video overview of the referendum, check out my interview with AWB general counsel Kris Tefft.
