The Approve 67 campaign is clearly supported by the plaintiff’s trial lawyers — there is a link to it on their website, and I believe (but am not certain) that Sue Evans, who is listed as a contact person on the Approve 67 site, is a spokesperson for the trial lawyers’ group. The choice to leave the plaintiff trial lawyers organization off of the Approve 67 website as an endorser can be characterized as nothing but additional, dishonest manipulative tactics.

A couple of comments about Mr. Shaw’s post. First of all, because of what many view as unfair condo legislation that creates bases for lawsuits without regard to whether the built structure is sound, contractors’ insurance premiums have skyrocketed in recent years so they should be very interested in, and sensitive to, legislation that could lead to even more lawsuits and could drive their premiums even higher (and more contractors out of business when they can’t afford insurance in our litigious society).

However, the flip side of that is that contractors’ policies don’t always cover claims that are made against them — not because the insurers are acting unfairly, but because the policies simply insure a different kind of risk. Many claims are somewhere in between, where the insurers are initially uncertain whether there is coverage or not. So, contractors have a very strong interst in seeing that insurers treat their insureds fairly. Apparently, the contractor referenced in the above-posts has evaluated these needs and determined that the current system adequately protects against insurer abuse — just as lots of other insureds have concluded. As we all know, the groups are sharply divided on both sides of this issue.

One final comment regarding Mr. Shaw’s post. He asserts that codifying case law about attorney’s fees provides some greater protection, but it really doesn’t. The case law is exceptionally strong in this state in favor of insureds, and Olympic Steamship is well protected by the doctrine of stare decisis. Availablity of fees under this doctrine is extremely unlikely to end in our lifetimes, but even if it did there is already a statutory (i.e., a codified) basis for attorneys fees found in Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, as referenced in the Barney post. While the CPA is not precisely the same as Approve 67, it provides for an award of attorneys fees (among other penalties) for unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce that affect the public interest.

You may not like the pictures on the website, but your comment on the law is misplaced. I don’t think I’ve heard the Approve 67 camp argue that current laws don’t protect anyone from some unreasonable insurance company conduct. They are arguing that ALL unreasonable conduct should be subject to penalty by the court if the facts support it.

Current law also affords a claimant attorneys fees under the Olympic Steamship opinion, but that is case law and is subject to each court’s view. By codifying the case law, you can assure the insurance company will pay if they are found to be at fault.