Follow The Money Behind Reject Referendum 67
- Date: 2007-08-31 - Word Count: 399
Share This!
New data on file with the state Public Disclosure Commission shows that the insurer-backed Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates committee has raised $4.78 million for its no-on-Ref. 67 effort. The same group had collected signatures forcing the Legislature's action onto the Nov. 6 ballot.
Of the donations, more than two-thirds, or roughly $3.4 million, comes from out of state, led by the $1.6 million given by Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
NOW MY QUESTION IS THIS.. You mean to tell me that out of state insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to fight a law because it will allow the industry to charge more for insurance? You mean the insurance industry is so concerned about saving Joe Public some money that its willing to spend millions of its own money to keep this from happening? GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Even if Referendum 67 will cause higher insurance premiums, why would the insurance industry care?? It means more money in their pockets. The proponents of Referendum 67 are merely hired lobbyists and insurance company talking heads paid to fight this pro-consumer law. Nothing more.
People buy insurance, pay their premiums, and expect that insurance companies honor their commitment to policyholders. Referendum 67 simply requires the insurance industry to pay legitimate claims in a fair, reasonable, and timely manner.
About Referendum 67 (description provided by the Approve 67 campaign) More than 4,100 consumers in Washington file complaints with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner against insurance companies every year because legitimate claims have been unfairly denied or delayed. Under our current law, there is no penalty for insurance companies that do not deal honestly with consumers. Unfortunately, some bad companies abuse the system by intentionally delaying or denying payment of legitimate claims.
If an insurance company unfairly denies a legitimate claim, your only recourse is to sue. But if you win, the only thing they have to pay is the amount of the original claim. Referendum 67 creates an incentive to treat legitimate claims fairly by allowing the court to assess penalties if an insurance company illegally denies or delays payment of a legitimate claim.
Referendum 67 would help to ensure that the insurance industry honor their commitments to treat all policyholders honestly by making it against the law to unreasonably delay or deny legitimate claims.
Referendum 67 covers claims related to homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, long-term care insurance, property insurance and small business insurance.
Of the donations, more than two-thirds, or roughly $3.4 million, comes from out of state, led by the $1.6 million given by Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
NOW MY QUESTION IS THIS.. You mean to tell me that out of state insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to fight a law because it will allow the industry to charge more for insurance? You mean the insurance industry is so concerned about saving Joe Public some money that its willing to spend millions of its own money to keep this from happening? GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Even if Referendum 67 will cause higher insurance premiums, why would the insurance industry care?? It means more money in their pockets. The proponents of Referendum 67 are merely hired lobbyists and insurance company talking heads paid to fight this pro-consumer law. Nothing more.
People buy insurance, pay their premiums, and expect that insurance companies honor their commitment to policyholders. Referendum 67 simply requires the insurance industry to pay legitimate claims in a fair, reasonable, and timely manner.
About Referendum 67 (description provided by the Approve 67 campaign) More than 4,100 consumers in Washington file complaints with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner against insurance companies every year because legitimate claims have been unfairly denied or delayed. Under our current law, there is no penalty for insurance companies that do not deal honestly with consumers. Unfortunately, some bad companies abuse the system by intentionally delaying or denying payment of legitimate claims.
If an insurance company unfairly denies a legitimate claim, your only recourse is to sue. But if you win, the only thing they have to pay is the amount of the original claim. Referendum 67 creates an incentive to treat legitimate claims fairly by allowing the court to assess penalties if an insurance company illegally denies or delays payment of a legitimate claim.
Referendum 67 would help to ensure that the insurance industry honor their commitments to treat all policyholders honestly by making it against the law to unreasonably delay or deny legitimate claims.
Referendum 67 covers claims related to homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, long-term care insurance, property insurance and small business insurance.
Related Tags: personal injury lawyers, insurance claims, referendum 67, insurance scams
www.Approve67.comwww.InjuryTrialLawyer.com Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles
Recent articles in this category:
- Work Cover Lawyers Help Workers Favored In New Contingency Agreement
Were you ever given a small amount of compensation after having been injured on your job? Have exper - Florida Last Will And Testament Information
A person who is at least 18 years of age can complete a Florida Last Will and Testament and is refer - Florida Durable Power Of Attorney Information
A Florida durable power of attorney is a legal document that designates a person to act on behalf of - California Power Of Attorney Information
In California any adult person who has the ability to enter into an agreement can complete and sign - Criminal Lawyer
Sexual assaults are increasing with alarming frequency and everyday there are news reports about var - Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Lawyer Explains, Foreclosure Is Not Your Only Option, You Have A Choice
Foreclosure has been one of the foremost topics within the real estate world in recent years, as eac - Should You Make A Personal Injury Claim?
Personal injury claims now gain wider exposure than ever before, yet many people are still unaware o - Mesa Bankruptcy- Regain Financial Stability
Are you drowning in overwhelming debt? Is it causing you mental, emotional and physical distress? Ta - How Bankruptcy Can Help You Financially Start Over With A Clean Slate
Fed up with debt? Desperately want to be free from the unbearable problem? If yes, then you should n - Major Yasmin Birth Control Side Effects
Yasmin is a popular form of hormonal birth control that has been heavily marketed, especially to you
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Be Aware of Single Owner LLC Tax Problems
One of the more popular business entity choices these days is the limited liability company. If - 14 Tips on How Parents Who Have a Child with a Disability Can Organize Their Estate
Copyright © 2007 L. Mark Russell As a general rule, parents should keep their original document - IF OUR PETS WERE REALY OUR "MINOR CHILDREN" MOST OF US "PARENTS" WOULD BE IN JAIL FOR CHILD NEGLECT
As a pet owner, do you need to have a pet trust or will in your estate plan? Well, maybe so, given - The Last Will And Testament - A Model NOT To Live By
The death of Anna Nicole Smith has at least one valuable outcome, even if it is simply serving as a - The British Constitutional Reform Act
The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 changed the British hitherto unwritten constitution by in - Patented Drugs
While a drug or process is under patent, other companies are wary of working anything even remote - Divorce and Debt
As common sense and statistics tell us, the leading cause of marital discord is money. Therefore - The Misunderstood World of Corporate Minutes
The corporation is the most used form of business entity in the United States. While many people - Attorney for Legal Services
All of us hire lawyers at one point or the other. People get sued, arrested, charged for a crime, - Should Parents EVER Leave an Inheritance Outright to a Child who has a Disability?
Copyright © 2007 L. Mark Russell There are few absolutes in estate planning, but this is one. I