Referendum 67: Protect consumers

Our elections this month are a lesson in dirty politics, be it between Seattle City Council candidates (yes, David Della and Tim Burgess, we're talking to you) or opposing sides of a given issue, such as Referendum 67.

The proposed law, which allows for triple damage payouts in cases where insurers unreasonably or unfairly deny claims, is touted as the brainchild of greedy trial lawyers by those opposing it. Then again, while the group rallying support against R-67 identifies itself as "Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates," it's actually backed by insurance companies, and so far, the Reject 67 campaign has spent $11 million to make its case (with most of that coming from insurance companies). And while insurance companies lambaste the Approve 67 camp for what it alleges are misleading television ads, Reject 67 sullied its hands with a questionable letter-writing campaign, threatening insurance customers with increased rates if they vote to approve the referendum.

But even ugly fights can produce a deserving victor, and in this case, we hope it's the Approve 67 lobby.

Insurance companies that treat their customers fairly have nothing to fear. Only the swindlers in the industry need to worry about lawsuits, as R-67, also known as "the insurance fair conduct act," clearly explains what constitutes breach of fair conduct, violation of codes and "standards for prompt investigation of claims." Simply put, the law would provide consumers with much-needed protection against bad actors in the industry.