Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004 | 11:21 a.m.
Here is a look at two ballot questions drawing powerful pro and con arguments:
This measure would, starting on Dec. 1, 2006, roll back all casualty insurance -- including car, home and medical malpractice insurance -- by 20 percent of the premium charged on Dec. 1, 2005. Life, health, workers' compensation and disability insurance would not be included.
It would give another 20 percent discount to good drivers.
The reduced rates would hold until Dec. 1, 2007, when all insurance companies would be required to submit an application to an insurance commissioner in order to raise insurance rates.
The insurance company is entitled to a "fair return," the petition states, but Nevadans should pay "fair rates." The insurance commissioner would be appointed by the Legislature, the petition states.
The real controversy begins in the last section of the petition, which addresses medical malpractice law. It states that any law that limits the amount a jury can award a patient would be void unless the law has reduced the average settlement and the average premiums charged to doctors by 10 percent before Dec. 1, 2006
This measure is simpler, stating that any lawyer who "has willfully encouraged, initiated or pursued litigation or defended litigation in a manner which is "vexatious and frivolous" shall be held responsible for attorney's fees, court costs and other expenses.
It also states that all people are entitled to recovery for all harm and losses caused to them.
It nullifies any changes to insurance law made between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 1, 2006 -- a move designed to stop Keep Our Doctors in Nevada should it pas.
archive
