Washington referendum 67

Okay, so anyone living up here in Seattle has more than likely seen advertisements either for or against R-67. Being the curious guy I am, I actually did a little bit of research into it, which includes reading the official write-up for it. There are some interesting facts in it that are totally being distorted by the commercials, the biggest being the "triple damages" verbiage. Yes, R-67 does allow triple damages, BUT only if the insurance company has been found to deny a legitimate claim. The triple damages are put in to try to keep the insurance company from delaying or flat-out denying a legitimate claim. There has also been a list of who has been paying for the advertisements. You guessed it, the major insurance companies in the area have paid for the commercials against it (including Farmer's and Safeco, two companies that will now never get my business, knowing their stance on fair settlements) and have invested in the area of $4 million to fight it. But, on the other hand, you have the firefighter's association and the Washington state nurses supporting the measure, while the state's trial lawyers have invested a majority of the $1 million to support it.

Anyways, I'll stop talking about it now. Go read it for yourself.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/r067.pdf