After reading Mary Mulcahy's letter to the editor, I'd like Ballard News-Tribune readers to hear another view of Referendum 67.

I am voting to reject Referendum 67. This is a law that was written by trial lawyers to benefit trial lawyers. It testimony before the (State House of Representatives), the prime sponsor of the bill could cite no crisis in Washington requiring the law and admitted he had simply worked with the Washington Trial Lawyers Association to write and pass the bill.

I am an insurance professional. I am proud of the work that I do to help by clients get the best possible coverage at the most reasonable price. When tragedy strikes, I work to help my clients become whole again.

Referendum 67 is an unnecessary bill. It does not add consumer protection, but it does add cost for every consumer who buys auto and homeowner policies. We already have strong consumer protection in place that work and work well. I now, I work with those laws every day. Our laws already prohibit an insurance company from dealing unfaithfully with a consumer.

It's not in the best interest of an insurance company to treat customers poorly anyway. This is a competitive business and customer service is what sells.

But, you don't have to take my word for it. Statistics out of the Office of Insurance Commissioner speak to the good business practices of the insurance companies. The Office of Insurance Commissioner gets less than 2,800 complaints a year for claims handling relating to Referendum 67, a number that represents less than 1 percent of applicable claims. Remember, a claim is not a violation.

There's just nothing in those numbers that reflect crisis demanding a law that allows trial lawyers another lucrative way to file a lawsuit.

Frankly, I am appalled that the proponents of this referendum are using scare tactics to get the public to support a bill that offers no additional consumer protection. Most of the proponents' ads are designed to get an emotional response. This is appalling since they are doing so by using false and deceptive information.

Voters should be skeptical when they see an ad advocating in favor of Referendum 67. Many of those ads falsely claim that Referendum 67 has something to do with medical claims. It does not. It has to do with auto, homeowner and business lines of insurance.

Voters also should weigh the costs of this bill. A reputable research firm - in fact, a firm the state's insurance commission himself has used, says Washington consumers will pay as much as $650 million more annually for insurance premiums on auto and homeowner policies. Business, too, will pay more. Many small businesses can ill afford such unnecessary costs.

Despite the information out of his own office, the insurance commissioner - who is elected - has been out stumping for this bill. Voters should remember this: insurance companies are forbidden by law from donating to the insurance commissioner's campaign coffers, but trial lawyers can make contributions.

Politics aside, let's look at the facts: Referendum 67 will alter dramatically our liability laws. It allows lawyers to bring lawsuits using the very low legal standard of "unreasonableness" to impose the very high liability of triple punitive damages. There is no definition of what "unreasonableness" is. The lucrative incentive for trial lawyers to file more and more lawsuits is evident. Every insurance claim will be a potential lawsuit, with insurance companies forced to settle for high payout amounts rather than risk costly litigation.

Remember, whether a lawsuit has merit for not, it must be defended. The legal costs and higher settlements will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher insurance rates.

I am voting no on Referendum 67. It should be rejected as special interest legislation that benefits trial lawyers only.

Melinda Elkin

Ballard