Washington Insurance Commissioner Fines USCCA $100,000 for Selling ‘Unauthorized Insurance’ in the State

USCCA washington state insurance fine

Courtesy USCCA

UPDATE: USCCA gave TTAG the following statement:

USCCA’s primary focus is empowering America’s responsible protectors to defend the people they love. In an effort to continue to support that mission, the USCCA has reached a resolution with the State of Washington Insurance Commissioner’s Office. The USCCA is currently not selling any new USCCA memberships in Washington.

The USCCA is diligently working on a membership delivery structure that is acceptable to the Washington Insurance Commissioner’s Office. The USCCA is hopeful that in the very near future we will be able to present the Washington Insurance Commissioner’s Office with a membership delivery model that will be acceptable so that citizens of the State of Washington can enjoy the many benefits of USCCA membership.

USCCA’s agreement with the State of Washington Insurance Commissioner’s office does not have any impact on USCCA members outside of the State of Washington.

-/-/-/-/-

One of the many ploys that the anti-gun community likes to use when attacking civilian gun ownership is claiming that gun owners should be required to carry insurance policies to cover any damage that may result from the use of their firearms.

While no state has required such policies (yet), premiums for that kind of coverage would increase the cost of gun ownership, reducing the number of people who can afford to keep and bear arms (which is, of course, the point).

There’s a pretty good argument that such a requirement would be unconstitutional — could you imagine the response to proposing that individuals carry insurance to cover the exercise of their First Amendment rights in case they should engage in slander or incite a riot?

A different kind of insurance that many gun owners willingly purchase covers the legal costs of defense if they should be forced to use a firearm to protect themselves or a family member. But that kind of insurance has come under attack in states like New York and Washington State (case in point: the NRA’s dearly departed Carry Guard program).

Anti-gun politicians in those jurisdictions love to call this kind of coverage “murder insurance,” claiming that it somehow encourages individuals to open fire with impunity. Or something.

Washington State hit the NRA hard for selling Carry Guard there, deeming the program illegal. Now the state’s insurance commissioner, Mike Kreidler, has targeted USCCA and has issued the following press release . . .

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has fined United States Concealed Carry Association, Inc., (USCCA) for violating Washington state laws by selling unauthorized insurance that illegally covers defense costs for criminal shootings.

“We made two things very clear to USCCA,” Kreidler said. “Insurers must be authorized to sell in our state, and policies can’t cover illegal activity. These law violations are fixable, if the company wishes to do business in Washington state.”

USCCA agreed to pay a $100,000 fine and $5,457 in unpaid premium taxes, penalties and interest and to continue not selling the insurance in Washington state. Fines assessed by Kreidler are deposited in the state’s general fund to pay for state services.

USCCA sold insurance to 1,675 Washington state consumers from Dec. 1, 2018 through Jan. 30, 2019, collecting $241,000. USCCA has paid no claims in Washington state.

USCCA bundled the insurance product, called a protection plan, with membership in its association. The protection plan provides payments for criminal defense costs if a member is charged with a crime related to the intentional use of a firearm or other weapon. Washington state law doesn’t allow a person to buy insurance for their own intentional criminal activity.

Additionally, USCCA was illegally acting as an insurer. Insurance companies must be authorized to sell policies in Washington state, and their policies must be reviewed and approved by Kreidler’s office.

USCCA voluntarily stopped selling membership and the protection plan in Washington on Jan. 30, 2019.

The protection plan says it excludes coverage for “criminal acts” and only covers “acts of self-defense.” However, the policies had no mechanism to make sure that payments made to policyholders who were later convicted of a crime were repaid to the insurer.

USCCA could sell insurance legally in Washington by changing its policies to not insure criminal activity, and either becoming a registered insurer or by placing insurance business through surplus lines brokers.

In January 2019, Kreidler fined one insurer and one insurance agency $177,000 for selling 811 similar illegal liability policies in Washington state under the National Rifle Association’s Carry Guard program.

Note that the press release indicates that insurance for “intentional criminal activity” is prohibited in Washington State. That, of course, isn’t why USCCA members purchase the coverage. Evergreen State gun owners — like the rest of USCCA’s customers — purchase the insurance to cover the crushing legal expenses that can result from a defensive gun use. Being subsequently charged by a prosecutor does not constitute “intentional criminal activity.”

Commissioner Kreidler apparently wants to be sure that anyone USCCA defends who is ultimately convicted of a crime pays the insurer back for their defense costs.

As the press release notes, USCCA stopped selling policies in Washington State in January and lays out ways the company can resume doing business there. We’ve asked USCCA for a comment on the fine and whether they intend to jump through the hoops needed to continue to do business in the state, but haven’t received a response yet. We’ll update this post if and when we do.

comments

  1. avatar Scott C. says:

    So much for “innocent until proven guilty”. Defend yourself with a firearm (or any weapon for that matter) and see how “innocent” you are to the local prosecutor.

    1. avatar Jeff In CO says:

      I guess we were on the same train of thought. Your comment wasn’t on my screen until after I posted mine!

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Now we see how they really see us.

  2. avatar Jeff In CO says:

    Technically, any prepaid attorney service should banned by their standard of “covering criminal acts.”

    Self defense is known as an “affirmative defense” built into homicide statutes. Having a lawyer is necessary. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty” in the context of his statement????

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Technically, any prepaid attorney service should banned by their standard of “covering criminal acts.” ”

      If an action is considered “criminal” before adjudication, isn’t it logical that attorneys accepting any payment at all, prior to acquittal. is illegal?

      Wonder if these plans can be converted to co-ops?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Attorneys getting paid to defend criminal cases is not illegal, but pooling resources to provide payment for such services is “insurance,” and therefore illegal according to the State of Washington. The distinction is without merit. The so-called insurance does not pay for illegal acts, it pays for attorneys. The only reason that it qualifies as insurance is that a member could recover more in paid attorneys fees and costs than was paid in in contribution dollars.

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        What about homeowners insurance. If I have a kitchen fire because I threw the frying pan, will my insurance company wait until after I’m cleared of “violence against my whatever”?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As a radical, left-wing, activist lawyer, I would advise insurance regulators thus:

          If a claim against the policy cannot prove beyond any doubt that the policy holder was involved, do not allow insurance coverage. As it happens, there is almost no situation calling for a claim on a policy where the policy holder is not involved.

          Establishing this policy can take two avenues: direct legislation controlling insurers; indirect legislation requiring insurers to insert the non-payment provision into every policy.

          The policy of zero claimant involvement is to be accompanies by the requirement that each person present in the state must annually demonstrate proof of insurance covering all risks.

        2. avatar My2cents says:

          You should check your home owners policy to see if it covers “willful acts”. Most homeowners policies specifically exclude willful acts. Shooting someone would be considered a willful act. I suggest that you discuss this type of situation with your insurance agent if you are concerned about your coverage options.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          This “what about homeowner’s insurance” question strikes me as pertinent.

          All our home-owner’s insurance policies cover us for the risk that we might – for example – leave a hazard lying about on our property. Perhaps a rake that someone might step on and clobber themselves in the head.

          OK, isn’t it illegal to leave a hazard in a place where a reasonable man could foresee someone being injured? Isn’t it illegal to drive while under the influence and injure someone peaceably crossing in front of one’s car?

          And what-about No-Fault auto insurance? I am compelled to buy auto insurance; let’s assume a no-fault state. If I drive under the influence and smash my car into an obstacle, my insurance must pay ME for my injury to myself because it “wasn’t my fault” that I smashed into an obstacle after deliberately consuming a substance that influenced my ability to drive safely.

          This allegation of “murder insurance” is as much nonsense as other aspects of our insurance system. Personal liability insurance encourages us to be negligent about leaving hazards on our property. No fault auto insurance makes us negligent about our driving.

          We ought to begin to think anew about insurance. Perhaps No-Fault auto insurance serves a useful purpose in that – if I were a bad driver – I would have difficulty finding an insurance carrier to assume the risk of issuing me a policy. I might have to pay a higher premium – or couldn’t get insurance at all.

          If gun carriers couldn’t find “insurance” companies to underwrite their self-defense insurance then perhaps they wouldn’t carry. Not until they had taken law-of-self-defense training. Not until they took a course such as NRA’s Personal Defense Outside the Home. Wouldn’t that be – arguably – a good thing?

          Shouldn’t we try to encourage/coerce/mandate gun-carriers to do things – such as getting self-defense insurance – as a means of getting them educated and trained?

          Washington state’s hostility to self-defense “insurance” seems on balance to be counter-productive.

  3. avatar Mark says:

    Ok so I live in WA and USCCA has been billing me every month and continues to do so. Do I have a right to a refund? I mean, had I needed their product it sounds like it would not have helped me.

    1. avatar Don says:

      I, too, live in WA.. I called USCCA recently when I noticed my coverage payments had ceased and my status changed to magazine subscription only. They told me they had to stop renewing and selling policies here, but didn’t describe the details here.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the last thing I need is another magazine…this insurance appears to be a good investment…a real “what-if” policy that I find comforting…hope they find a way to fight this…

        1. avatar Andy says:

          Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is local to WA and worth checking out. It’s not an insurance product, it’s a fraternal organization similar to what police have. Overall a great option and unlikely to be attacked as easily.

  4. avatar Lance says:

    Heh. They want us to have insurance for liability but not for court and lawyer fees. If they aren’t coming after gun rights they’re going after self defense. These people truly are something else…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The problem with these idiots is that on the one hand, self-defense insurance is paying for criminal acts, but paying out damages from a general liability policy (that only pays for “accidents” and not criminal misconduct) is perfectly proper. Do these folks realize that a very small number of people are killed or wounded accidentally each year, and the vast majority of incidents are the result of criminal misconduct for which no insurance can be made available?

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      they play hardball…we better do the same….

    3. avatar Gny says:

      I think you’re wrong. Liability insurance never covers international acts either. They want to mandate insurance coverage that’s impossible to obtain as a prerequisite for gun ownership. Remember – the California circuit Court stated that they law being impossible to follow is not a reason to strike it down, when they talked about microstamping.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Do not underestimate the authoritarian left; they are not really stupid.

    California has produced a state supreme court ruling that the physical impossibility of complying with a law does not make application of such law invalid/illegal. (see micro-stamping). Dan presented one aspect of the attack on “insurance”…make it harder to own a firearm. Another facet is the potential combination of requiring specific liability insurance to own a firearm, and ruling such insurance illegal. It would be impossible to comply with the laws, resulting in the inability to exercise an enumerated, preexisting right.

    Curiously, no pro-gun organization challenged the state of Washington law that declared an act “criminal” before the act is adjudicated. Same applies to the state of New York. State laws that can declare an act “criminal” prior to adjudication can eliminate all personal liability insurance. How difficult will it be to make every civil tort a crime?

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Reminds me of those tax laws that are applied retroactively. The law didn’t exist 11 months ago, but now you have to pay those back taxes this year.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Reminds me of those tax laws that are applied retroactively. The law didn’t exist 11 months ago, but now you have to pay those back taxes this year.”

        It is all part of the grand game.

  6. avatar 2aguy says:

    Another reason to vote for Trump……here are 3 more…..

    Ginsburg is ill, Stephen Breyer is 81, and if Trump wins, Clarence Thomas may retire to allow Trump to replace him……so we could have an actual, honest to goodness Supreme Court ruling on cases like this in the future..for the next 20-40 years…if people simply put Trump back in office for the next 4 years……people of the gun……you had better understand…any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Gun rights precede the second amendment and aren’t dependent on wording in the BoR, also, the state and federal governments don’t give a squirt of piss what the wording says to begin with, see all of the unconstitutional non-laws for the evidence.

      Owning guns is purely dependent on the people deciding for themselves to own them and having the fortitude to do so.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        This. The wording of the 2A explains a fundamental truth: that people have the right to keep and bear arms. But if it were repealed tomorrow (and let’s be honest, the 2A is repealed already, they just haven’t actually erased it from the BoR), we would not give up our right to keep and bear.

  7. avatar Greg says:

    So by the Insurance Commissioner’s line of logic, :If a person runs a red light and creates a crash, which seriously injures or kills someone, that person’s insurance is no good?” More to the point, it must be illegal to carry car insurance in Washington State, right?

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Maybe he only bought car insurance because he’s a professional “hit man”. Hmmmm that’s a tough one….. Just wait, Washington State will find a way to punish them. Fine those insurance companies that paid out to those “accidents”, even if unknowingly.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        So would having an attorney on a retainer also be illegal ?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Not as long as you pay him/her out of your own pocket and not with an insurance policy.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “If a person runs a red light and creates a crash, which seriously injures or kills someone, that person’s insurance is no good?”

      If a person *drives drunk* (a criminal act) and runs that red-light and injures or kills, the insurance pays out.

      Perhaps we need to put an end to that… 😉

  8. avatar D says:

    How are these companies so dumb as to not get licenses in the states they do business???

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Because they know that there are just as many brainwashed lemmings on the right as there are on the left. A fool and his money are soon parted.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      They formulated their plan in such a way as to avoid being an insurer, and at least in the beginning (I have no idea what they are doing now), the plan was a reimbursement plan where costs were reimbursed after verdict, so that they were not defending against “illegal acts.” One portion of the [penal law (intentionally?) over looked by the insurance commissioner is that someone can be convicted of manslaughter without any showing of a specific intent (mens rea) to harm. There is no reason at all that one should not be able to insure against the costs of defense of a negligent homicide case.

  9. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I have mixed feelings and thanks Dan, for giving a balanced article. I looked at Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, USCCA and one or two other places. It all seemed too expensive for a VERY slim chance of needing their services. If I ever do decide to take the leap, I figure I’ll probably go with the one Mas Ayoob belongs to.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It all seemed too expensive for a VERY slim chance of needing their services. ”

      All insurance is too expensive for the very slim chance of ever needing it (maybe life insurance is an exception). The question is one of risk mitigation: likelihood v. magnitude of consequence. The other side of the equation is “the house”, the insurer betting you are right, that you will actually never file a claim.

      Here is a consideration that we don’t explore much: loss of job/loss of income.

      What are the ramifications of not being able to pay for legal assistance if you don’t have income? What is the likelihood you will lose your job as a result of all the time away needed to assist in your defense? Exactly who will suffer from loss of income/loss of job.

      When deciding on a legal defense plan, do your own research, do it diligently. Masood is not infallible (just like the rest of us), and he may be no better informed than anyone else. Have you heard from Mas regarding his choice in light of New York and Washington?

      1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

        No, I haven’t heard anything about New York or Washington, regarding this topic. Since I’m retired military, I won’t lose my job…however, I understand I could lose my pension if I am ever convicted of a felony.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…however, I understand I could lose my pension if I am ever convicted of a felony.”

          Thanx for pointing that out. Have become so accustomed to not being in the military that I overlooked retirees when considering economic damage due to legal expenses caused by losing a job/income. Need to rethink how to present the dilemma of being without legal defense funding.

      2. avatar Casey says:

        Mas is on the board for ACLDN, which is not – and I can’t stress this enough – an insurance plan. ACLDN is run by Marty Hayes. Also on the board of advisors is Jim Flemming, John Farnam, Tom Givens, and Dennis actual-F’in Tueller, of the Tueller drill.

        Nobody is infallible, true, but all the actual expert witnesses in the self defense realm are on board with (or on the board of) ACLDN. If you were planning on looking into such things, I would recommend you start there.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I prefer being able to contact a lawyer immediately (hot line to an attorney, not a program executive who does a mini-trial analysis), and have no limit on attorney fees.

          Firearms Legal Protection is posing some interesting benefits.

          Go with names if you choose, but you may want to do annual reviews of the various programs; stuff changes.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      “expensive”?…base plan is about fifteen bucks a month…..

    3. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      It isn’t just abut the slim chance of the need to use a firearm in self defense, it is also about the dire financial consiquences of being charged and having to defend yourself. Yes, your local DA might just put you on trial to sooth the feelings of the relatives of the bad guy who was trying to kill you, or you may just be fresh meat on the platter he serves up to be elected to higher office; his whim could destroy your financial future and that of your family. Go bare if you like, but the cost seems minor to me, also how much did you spend on that fancy new pistol, and that great holster, and belt, and your carry permit, and ammo, and you do practice right, and please tell me you verified the function of that new carry gun!

      Face it it is expensive to maintain an even moderate level of self defense and even that is no guarantee of safety.

  10. avatar Hankus says:

    Washington is trying to suck as hard as CA these days under Gov. Climatechange. You might say Inslee is trying to out-suck Newsom.

    All those idiots moving to WA from CA have obviously not improved the situation.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      expect this tactic to be repeated in blue states….

  11. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Driving is a privilage.

  12. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    What are you calling illegal activity, JACKASS? Self-defense IS not illegal!!!

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Welllll…in another life I was a licenced insurance agent(producer). I’m surprised more states haven’t done this BS. I’m thinking each state should pool their resources as a hedge and NOT have groups illegally selling “insurance”. Sort of what clubs and fraternities do. A benevolent society as it were…I guess you can’t leave a body😖

  14. avatar enuf says:

    If they failed on due diligence to understand the insurance laws, to be in full compliance on regulations, to write a clause that cancels coverage if the claim is due to the claimant committing a crime, well that is their screw-up and tough cow pies it is then.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If they failed on due diligence to understand the insurance laws, …. to write a clause that cancels coverage if the claim is due to the claimant committing a crime,….”

      “Crime” is the crucial term. NY and WA essentially posit that any shooting of another person is prima facie a crime; no adjudication required.

      A number of legal defense programs will only reimburse (never pay it forward), and only if the client/beneficiary is acquitted at trial. However, under the “logic” of NY and WA, even those companies are at risk because shooting another person is a crime, regardless of any other consideration.

      The “logic” of the NY and WA laws prohibit any funds being paid by anyone other than the accused (or the successful legal defender) in cases of defensive use of a firearm. The diabolical element is that even if a successful legal defender is not officially/actually charged with a crime (is not even arrested), the shooting itself is a crime needing no adjudication, therefore no funds from sources other than from the shooter may be used for purposes of legal defense.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        One problem is that their definition of a “crime” is too broad. Negligent homicide is a “crime,” but it does not void your auto or homeowner’s insurance, since the death is not the result of an “intentional act,” and the policies will defend and indemnify with respect to civil suits brought about as a result of the injury.

        Moreover, and contrary to a comment above, “self-defense” is no longer an “affirmative defense” in the sense that the defendant does NOT have to show he acted in self-defense, the prosecutor has to prove that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense. Ohio was the last state to shift the burden of proof back to the prosecutor to demonstrate that the killing was not justified beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant has to prove self-defense, that means that the defendant has to show that he is not guilty, i.e., guilty until proven innocent. And that is exactly what the insurance commissioner here has done–presumes that a shooter is guilty of a crime before adjudication.

  15. avatar rt66paul says:

    Self defense is not illegal, except when someone is convicted for something else(depriving someone of his/her civil rights, etc). So this “insurance” could just insuring an illegal act. You have to love these people that want you to be guilty before your day in court. Being charged does not mean you did something illegal.

  16. avatar borg says:

    The states are misrepresenting it as insurance when in reality it is a prepaid legal defense fund.

  17. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    I’ve been a member of USCCA for several years and I never considered it as insurance but more like pre-paid bond and a retainer for a pro 2A attorney should I ever need one to defend myself. At no time has USCCA ever represented to me that they would provide funds to defend any illegal acts but would guarantee my release on bond and pay my legal fees within the limits of my level of participation as well as any civil suits that may arise from such action… How can the LEGALITY of any action be determined without a trial and conviction by a jury of your peers.. Does that mean that ALL of the big corporations in Washington are engaged in illegal relationships by keeping law firms on retainer to defend the company and/or it’s executives in litigation of matters that arise from time to time without regard to the legality of the act.. Are those law firms not selling “insurance” for possibly illegal purposes…

  18. avatar Jeff says:

    I live in New York and HAD the USCCA policy until Cuomo did the same thing that Washington is doing: He charged them and the NRA insurance program with illegally selling insurance. I was obviously concerned because, as unlikely as it is to ever need it, I’d be afraid to carry without protection. So I did some research and discovered CCWSafe (www.ccwsafe.com).

    This company has a very different model that doesn’t subject to the whims of the states. As I understand it, they are not an insurance company, but a “Legal Member Service Company,” and the service provided is legal protection. In their own words from their website:

    ***************************************************
    “CCW Safe is a legal service membership plan that was designed for CCW permit/license holders, active and retired military and law enforcement officers, and gun owners. We are not an insurance plan, we are a legal defense service plan. CCW Safe takes on the burden of the expenses associated with defending a self-defense/use of force critical incident. These expenses can include attorneys fees, investigators, experts, and other associated costs, such as depositions, document fees, trial exhibits, and more. CCW Safe does not have the conflicts of an insurance product because the company is designed to indemnify the cost of the incident and not the outcome of a trial. It is not a reimbursement package and no money is required to be paid back to the company regardless of the outcome. You are covered in all states that honor your permit, and in all 50 states where you can legally possess firearm. CCW Safe members will not have any out of pocket expenses associated with defending a self defense incident, nor will they be limited by a policy cap on defense costs.”
    ********************************************************************
    As I understand it, they have their own insurance company that insures the “services” they provide; thus creating a buffer between the state and the actual insurance company.

    Definitely worth looking at if you suddenly find yourself without insurance.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      This is how USCCA was set up originally, and maybe still is. If it doesn’t decide to fight one of these administrative adjudications, it will soon find itself out of business in all states run by democrats.

  19. avatar JOHN THAYER says:

    Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to people living in modern welfare states that have a social safety net and economic “entitlements” and “human rights”.

    But I’m all for selling insurance to cover illegal acts, up to and including felony murder. It’s a financial transaction. If you want it and can find someone who is willing to sell it to you that’s fine with me. It’s your free will and theirs. Protecting people just results in weak people who will trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety. That is the road to serfdom, aka “socialism”.

  20. avatar Mad Max says:

    I just looked at my homeowners policy and it says that the bodily injury and property damage liability exclusions due to a willful act of the insured do not apply if they are resulting from “the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.”

  21. avatar jeff hoser says:

    Hmmmm…I’ve always thought selling ” murder insurance ” was the province of our poolitical machines and organized crime elements. I see the insurnace products currently marketed to a targeted demographic are ” limited liability ” contracts with well-defined limits of applicability . Seems the ” gubbmin’t ” doesn’t w3ant even this small area of free enterprise to exist ! And HITH does WA government think it has the power to abridge the 14th ( along with the 2nd. _amendment rights of individuals ?

  22. avatar Tim Hinderer says:

    Wow,So lets say I go to the bar have too many drinks and rearend another car. That would be a illegal activity on my part yet my insurance company(auto) would pay for the damages. Although they might drop my coverage after that, I fail to see the difference.I was born and raised in Washington and sad to see the way things are headed. Good luck USCCA I will join as soon as Im able….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wow,So lets say I go to the bar have too many drinks and rearend another car. That would be a illegal activity on my part yet my insurance company(auto) would pay for the damages.”

      You gotta git cheer min’ right.

      First, the car was not invented to be a tool for killing
      Second, everyone “needs” a car
      Third, you would not have intentionally rear-ended another car; simple accident
      Fourth, a car does not have a nature of inducing people to use a car for evil deeds
      Fifth, well yes, pour me another coupla fingers of that liquid spot weld from that Pyrex jug

  23. avatar Trillium says:

    Mike Kreidler has been a tool for big insurance in this state. So reading what a great guy he is for fining a meager 100k to an insurance company that wants to move into this state is not that big of a deal. He was probably protecting the current insurance company’s territory I bet. Do not think for a minute Mike cares about voters in this state. He is a career politician. He allows credit scoring to continue in this state when other states like California and Hawaii and Massachusetts do not. He cries crocodile tears about it all too. If you do any research about these credit bureaus you will see an endless list of lawsuits against them for negligence towards consumers over and over again. Mike has been in office about the same time credit scoring was adopted. Is that a coincidence? If credit scoring for insurance had been put to voters it would have never passed. The state had to settle a lawsuit with one of his own judges for pressuring her to side with insurance company over children’s hospital. The Children’s Hospital in Seattle was going to be dropped from major insurance plans! Mike has new lows and will sell out children. Taxpayers had to pay out 450k for that mess! Please vote him out of office in 2021 and find someone who will not sell out to big insurance in this state. My god he is 76 yrs old and should have retired years ago! Too many of these ancient democrats just hold onto power much too long and have sold voters out for decades. Talk about long in the tooth! I am life long democrat but am sick to death with how they have sold out voters and ruined our state. They side with big corporations over and over again. For years Equifax and other agencies like it, did not bother to fix reports in the 2000’s. Only when a major lawsuit from several states did Equifax and the others finally hire enough people to fix reports. But during all those years they didn’t, they were reporting credit worse than it really was. This enabled insurance companies and banks to raise rates based on these incorrect credit scores and no one got refunds! Having auto and homeowner’s insurance that is automatically deducted by ACH is not apples to apples to paying your department store credit card account on time. It doesn’t make you file false claims. But they will use ANY excuse to make you seem more riskier and thus raise rates. this whole bogus scoring by Equifax seems rather vague much like SEO from Google. They even pressure seniors into using credit way beyond what is prudent to maintain this stupid credit score for better rates. We should be rewarding those who are solvent and careful about debt not penalizing them for it with higher rates and requiring credit scores for insurance. Citizens should be able to avoid these sleazy banks and credit bureaus but since insurance is mandated in Washington this forces voters to have to play the credit bureau game in this state and the banks love this too. Before you could avoid the sleazy banks today now with deregulation and credit bureaus and get insurance. Plus should we talk about how nothing much was changed to prevent another Wallstreet melt down? Yeah it can happen again and they say next time it will be too big to even fix it much at all. So when it goes down it will really hurt citizens in a way they haven’t seen since the great depression. Banks will fail next time around they are too big not to fail. This fix has been in way too long and for decades earlier credit scoring was not allowed. These insurance companies are now reporting to stockholders to increase profits and it has nothing to do with risk so much anymore. Using sketchy Equifax et al is just horrible. Avoid the game they suck consumers in on. Pay cash, close accounts. Don’t use the credit at all and let them freeze it. Let their scam backfire. Before these credit agencies only gave access to regulated banks now they allow car dealers and insurance companies access and god knows who else and it is a really bad idea. Right now Equifax is paying out 700 million for their breach in 2017. Can you imagine all the breaches that are quietly done by banks or car dealers and insurance companies? Equifax never warned consumers about the 2017 breach until after top executives cashed out their Equifax stocks. Our lame FTC could not even get Equifax to admit guilt to the breach it was so lame! So this new FTC head is just as bad as the last one. Thanks Trump! Equifax has a long history and pattern so giving them a pass on this once again was doing the banking and insurance sector a big favor. They were so lax with security that Homeland Security had to tell Equifax they had been breached. Really it benefits Equifax’s business accounts if your credit is worse due to hacking since they all can charge more for higher risks. Do not think any class action attorneys give a rip about consumers. Nope this latest class action has four law firms who are getting 77 million and they did not require nor did the FTC for Equifax to do more on how to move forward on all this. They really didn’t care about the consumers. So now your credit is frozen and my insurance went up based on that! Equifax wants me to mail a copy of my S.S. card and driver’s license to prove who I am and most folks would not take that risk. They know this. It also does nothing to prove who you are either. Plus wasn’t this the same company that used poor security practices that got us in the mess in the first place? This has impacted 147 million Americans, nearly half of all Americans have been breached. Not only that but the IRS head guy paid Equifax 7.2 million to get Equifax to compile a list of breached victims. We had to pay these bums to get them to cooperate. That list was paid from tax payer money and that list is what they are now using to up insurance rates. Why taxpayers had to pay for this list is just beyond my understanding. I think a Congressman said something like you can’t fix stupid to the IRS about paying the offender 7.2 million. I even had security password or 35 yrs of credit to verify and they wouldn’t do that! The fix is in. Guess who pays out on these settlements? Yep insurance. These insurance companies and credit bureau companies are complicit in the way they rip off consumers. Our AG’s office does nothing about it either since he is so busy running for Governor AGAIN and I hope he loses AGAIN and he and Mike are both elected democrats and both work for the state and well it is politicians like this that has ruined Washington state for the voters time and time again. Makes you want to move to another state or become an expat. I can see a time where citizens will not be able to afford reasonable insurance because so many are on the take with insurance companies. But Mike Kreidler and Greg Ferguson will be making tons of money so it won’t hurt them in the least.

  24. avatar S. Lorenz says:

    I am not watching the debate this evening! I have vowed to do all I can for the good of my mind a d overall health, to limit as much stress, unnecessary and avoidable stress , as much as I possibly can,. So, no debate for me.
    If Harris – Biden come to power, God Forbid, Our Country Will no longer be the Nation as founded. What we are discussing, the inability to purchase liability insurance to defray , or cushion the effects and coast of an accident, or even the use of a concealed pistol, dully and legally licensed.
    It is a sad fact that the trajectory that our country has been and currently is on scares the hell out of me!
    The posts I have been reading are old and were written without benefit of knowing the nature of the political enemies that the USA must beat back, if it is to survive!
    I really cannot understand why there is not more consternation and pushback against the mobs that are defiling our great America!

    Reading the comments , dated as they are,, it is clear that the forces arrayed against our liberties have been warring againstthe Nation, and us all, for some time. Indeed, we have not been at war with them, but by there actions, they have damn well been at war with us!
    God bless Our Country, God Bless us all!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email