JavaScriptWashington State legislators are moving ahead with a bill providing coverage against uninsured motorists, which was drafted after an insurer balked at paying a claim lodged by the innocent victim of a road rage incident.

The measure, which was sought by Democratic Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler and titled “Ethel's Bill,” was unanimously approved by the House Financial Institutions & Insurance Committee and is now with the House Rules Committee.

Under the bill's language, coverage is required whether or not an event was intentional, unless the insurer can demonstrate that the insured intended to cause the damage for which the insured is seeking coverage.

Accident is defined as an occurrence that is unexpected and unintended from the standpoint of the covered person.

Commissioner Kreidler said he sought the bill after an accident last year involving Ethel Adams, which caused “unprecedented public outcry.”

Ms. Adams, 60, was injured in a five-car pileup that was caused by a man trying to run his girlfriend's pickup truck off the road.

After she was cut from her car, Ms. Adams was in a coma for nine days.

When Ms. Adams lodged a claim, her insurer denied it on the grounds it was the result of an intentional act. The carrier ultimately reversed its decision after the commissioner threatened legal action.

According to Mr. Kreidler, the case caused an “unprecedented public outcry” drawing more e-mails to his department than any issue in the past six years.

Kenton Brine, northwest regional manager for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said the bill is now with the Rules Committee, which will likely schedule a vote by the full House in the coming weeks and an identical Senate bill could be considered in an upcoming committee.

He said his organization was supportive of the measure because it was modified to allow insurers to guard against fraud while protecting “innocent victims of collisions that are caused — on purpose or due to an accident — by uninsured motorists.”

Mr. Brine said that without an amendment by bill sponsor Rep. Mark Ericks (D-Bothell), insurers potentially would have been exposed to the chance that an alleged “intended victim” actually might be colluding with the driver who caused a collision in order to collect insurance proceeds.

The amendment, he explained, makes no changes to the protection the bill offers to unintended third-party victims.

Insurance interests who testified and voiced concerns included PCI, Allstate, SAFECO, American Insurance Association, and State Farm Insurance.

This article originally appeared in The National Underwriter P&C. For the complete article, please click here.

Special Reports /

Washington State Moves Ahead with Road Rage Bill

Related Stories

Recommended For You