Brad Shannon has a lengthy article in today's Olympian about R-67, "Insurers, lawyers square off," which summarizes the arguments on both sides of the alternatively simple and complex issue. It's a good read, even chiding both sides for a factual slip-up (decide for yourself which campaign's misstatement was fanciful, as opposed to being just off).
The reporting comes largely out of meetings the Approve and Reject sides had yesterday with the Olympian's editorial board. I participated alongside the Liability Reform Coalition's executive director, and shared these (and other) thoughts:
Kris Tefft, chief counsel for the Association of Washington Business, said his organization is concerned that insurance rates could go up. Washington has a long history of not allowing punitive damages, and this measure would open the door to questions in court about what is a reasonable or unreasonable denial of a claim, he said.
"I would submit to you it's very subjective. Everyone is going to make a claim they have been treated unreasonably," Tefft said."The burden of proof is on proponents of this law to show why this legislation is needed," he added.
I don't think the proponents, largely the lawyers' group that will most benefit financially should R-67 become law, have met this burden and hope to expand upon that theme in the coming days on this blog. In the meantime, it is interesting to note that newspapers will naturally pursue the narrative of insurance companies versus trial lawyers. But the issue is most appropriately framed with respect to the consumers in the middle. Are consumers adequately protected from bad faith under our state's existing consumer protection regime, and can we say with some certitude that R-67 would bring more lawsuits and higher insurance costs borne by the general public? These are the questions that put the consumers in the middle. Stay tuned for the answers.
