I seem to have noticed that most of the folks who oppose Referendum 67 have some pretty close ties to insurance companies.
In their anti-R-67 advertisements, the insurance providers have attempted to demonize trial lawyers. Although lawyers could potentially benefit from this referendum’s passage, the real issue here is not the behavior of trial lawyers, but of insurance providers.
To make a comparison: When we pay a lawyer for services, we assume that the lawyer will fight to legitimize our claim. It’s rather sad to think that our faithful payments of insurance premiums may result (just when our need is greatest) in our insurance provider attempting to drag its feet, hoping we’ll get tired of waiting for a settlement and give up, or die. This kind of treatment simply makes the idea of paying premiums to buy security an expensive illusion.
It shouldn’t be too much to ask the insurance companies to step up to the plate and honor their commitments. R-67 requires an insurance provider to not unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment. This bill has already been passed by the Legislature and has been recommended for approval by the state’s insurance commissioner.
I feel the reasons to approve R-67 are compelling, trial lawyers notwithstanding.
Steve O’Grady
Arlington
> Give us your news tips. > Send us a letter to the editor. > More Herald contact information.Talk to us