"eleemosynary"? Are you kidding me? I've died and gone to heaven. David, you're beginning to make George Will look illiterate!

David-

That R 67 applies to Ethel is indisputable. She was denied her first party coverage by her insurer. I suppose they may try to argue that they "had a reasonable basis" for that position. But no one in their right mind would agree with that, especially Insurance Commisioner Kreidler, and your colleague Danny Westneat, both of whom did so much to bring this to denial to light, and force the insurer to have to provide her the benefits she was entitled to under her policy.

If R 67 was in place, they would have thought twice about such an absurd position.

Nothing in the legislative action on Ethel creates any penalties or incentives to keep them from doing this again, even in the exact same situation as Ethel's. That is the purpose of ESSB 5726 and R 67. We need incentives to keep them from coming up with a new or slightly different and even more torturous denial of the next claim like Ethel's.

The fact they are denying the denial tells you all you need to know about the way they have handled this case, and unfortunately, too many cases. Their denial is a matter of record.

So if I have this right, they denied the claim, then they denied they denied the claim, and now they are denying they denied denying the claim. If you can follow that, you can follow the industry's logic.

I have bit my tongue during this campaign. I can't stay silent on this. Their actions and continuing attacks speak voluems on why we need R 67.

Best wishes, Larry Shannon

There's a reason why a lot of us ended up voting Yes on this.

The insurance companies dug their own grave.

The more the insurance companies argue AGAINST R67, the more they make the case to vote FOR R67.

"There's spinning the truth, but once you flip it 180 degrees, it eventually becomes a lie."

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Sue Evans

My Mom got hit in a crosswalk a couple years ago by a driver running a red light. The driver's insurance carrier -- Farmers -- tried to get my Mom to pay for the damage to the driver's car.

Matt - that is sickening what they did to your mom. I hope it all woked out in the end.

I wonder if anyone is dumb enough to buy the insurance companies bogus claims.

Insurance companies have a supercomputer to find out exactly how much you owe them. But when it comes time for the consumer to collect, the insurance companies seem to have a monkey with an abacus in the back room issuing checks.

Good reporting, and very dumb on Farmers' part. Why not just admit they made a mistake? Perhaps they think that by flooding the airwaves with No on R-67, it doesn't matter if they tell the truth or not.

I don't think insurance companies are evil (and there are a lot of good people in the industry, including the ones appalled at Farmers' tactics), but the good ones ultimately aren't calling the shots. This is a prime example of why I'm voting for R-67.

I'm reading these comments, waiting to read something from the insurance industry justifying/defending Farmers' actions with Ethel and others. Their silence is telling me they can't continue to defend the indefensible

Keep drinking the kool-aid. Everyone keeps saying that "her Farmer's policy" denied her. WRONG.She was not with Farmers, her employer was. She was on the job, delivering dentures, etc when the accident happened. Since when is it up to the employers general liability insurance to pay for an on the job injury? This is where Worker's Compensation and Department of Labor and Industries come to play. The fact is Farmers started paying bills on 03/25/2005 that is 2 days after the accident. I do believe it was not handled the best, but what the general public doesn't know is that there was a problem from word go. Several of Farmers competitors filed suit in a "friends" brief because they needed clarification. The laws were clarified in HB2415 "Ethel's Bill" in January 2006. Farmers Insurance did not even have all of the police and investigation report when Mike Kreidler abused his power and said he would revoke Farmers Insurance Company and the subsidiaries licenses. That is not within his scope as comminsioner.
Now lets get to the law firm that represented Ms. Adams, one of the attorneys is Karen Koehler, the President of the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, the same that is spearheading the Approve R-67 campaign. I have a very close friend that was hit by a hit and run driver, they filed a claim with their company, The PIP was exhausted and they had received a standard denial letter from their company. They contacted Ms. Koehler and the first words out of her mouth was "will you take a polygraph (lie Detector)" My friend was flabbergasted and appalled. They had a legitimate claim and this attorney has the audacity to ask this? When my friend called me and told me this i asked them whet their policy limits were and they responded $50k/100. I can't prove it but seems like the limits are "too low" for Ms Koehler to take on. Since the most that the company would have to pay out is the $100k, that means it would be $16,667k to the attorney and $33,334k before expenses to my friend. Looks like it is not worth it and not high profile. Before you take everything you read in the papers, watch on the news, hear on the radio as the truth and gospel, do your own research and you would be amazed at what transpires. I know what happened 2 years ago, where Ethel Adams was concerned, tehre were 2 measures on the ballots that certain groups wanted approved and amazingly 3 weeks prior to election day the story broke. The police reports had not been finished and neither was the investigation. That was turned over to Farmers just a few weeks AFTER the elections and that they had been "BULLIED" into paying a claim that they were already paying on.