Have a question for Ballotpedia staff?
Click here to live chat with one of our writers between 9am-5pm CST.




Washington Triple Damages for Unreasonable Insurance Denials, Referendum 67 (2007)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Referendum 67 was on the November 6, 2007 general election ballot in Washington as a veto referendum, where voters upheld a law allowing consumers to collect triple damages from their insurance company, if the insurance company unreasonably denies a claim or violates unfair practice rules.[1]

The measure pitted insurance companies against trial lawyers.

When the new law was signed into law by Christine Gregoire, in her capacity as Governor of Washington, opponents immediately launched a petition drive to collect enough signatures to forestall the law going into effect, pending a statewide vote on the measure. They turned in 155,220 petition signatures on July 20, 2007.[2]

Election results

Referendum 67
Votes Percentage
Yes 910,598 56.70%
No 695,326 43.30%

Opponents

The organization officially opposing the new law was called "Reject 67." Its spokeswoman was Dana Childers, who argued that the law is a solution in search of a problem, an invitation to frivolous lawsuits and a surefire way to increase insurance premiums in the state.[3]

Reject 67 reported more than $8,000,000 in donations, primarily from insurance companies. State Farm Automobile Insurance contributed $1.6 million, and Safeco Insurance donated $1.3 million.

Supporters

"Approve 67" said that the new law should be endorsed by voeters because it puts consumers on a level playing field with big insurance companies.

Without the law, supporters said, there are minimal negative consequences to insurance companies if they are quick to deny legitimate claims.

"Approve 67" as of mid-September 2007 had raised $887,000, nearly all from attorneys. The trial attorney's association in Washington has argued that the television ads against 67 are "slanderous" in their portrayal of litigious lawyers.[4]

Charges about campaign violations

Some insurance companies sent letters to their customers in mid-October warning them of likely insurance rate increases should Referendum 67 pass. A complaint was filed with the state's Public Disclosure Commission alleging that these letters amount to an illegal campaign contribution. The insurance companies deny this, saying it is "laughable", and have filed their own complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission, arguing that the state's Trial Lawyers Association--the main supporters of the referendum--violated the law when they sent a pro-67 newsletter to lawyers who are not members of their association.[5]

Editorial endorsements

The Olympian launched the editorial season with a September 17 editorial arguing in favor of the new law.[6] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times both supported 67.

See also

 		Suggest a link

External links

Notes

  1. ↑ Official Election Results from State of Washington
  2. ↑ http://www.washingtoninsurancelaw.com/2007/07/signed-referendum-67-petitions.html
  3. ↑ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003898433_webref67.html
  4. ↑ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003884052_postmanblog14m.html
  5. ↑ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/336948_letters26.html
  6. ↑ http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/221181.html
v • d • e
2007 ballot measures in Washington
v • d • e
2007 ballot measures
2007 ballot measures
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Triple_Damages_for_Unreasonable_Insurance_Denials,_Referendum_67_(2007)"
Personal tools