When it comes to major changes in the insurance code, they typically follow the same pattern: initially, they are met with some public outcry from consumers that makes its way into the media and generates the kind of political pressure that eventually moves the legislature into action. Then the legislative battles take shape as lawmakers start to react to their constituents, while the various special interest groups start creating the framework for laying out their demands in defending undesirable law changes. Since the hearts of the battles span only a 60-day regular session and often hinge on just a handful of votes, the attention devoted to the issues is widespread and the subject of much debate and education. In the aftermath of the legislative process, there is also a sense of relief after expending an intense amount of energy and concentration when so much is on the line.

While the legislative process is often seen as the conclusion of an issue, the truth is that lawmakers don't have the final word. That privilege is the courts' and within any major insurance issue, whether it be workers' compensation, medical malpractice, or homeowners' insurance, there are innumerable provisions that become the subject of litigation. This is one reason why in the immediate aftermath of a major legislative reform act's passage, there is often a lag between the reform's passage and the market's response.

One such example of this process is the 2003 workers' comp reforms and the changes it made to claimant attorneys' fees. Addressing claimant attorneys' fees was a top priority of employer/carriers and a cornerstone of the 2003 reforms. At issue was the payment of hourly fees, which had its genesis in a 1990 court ruling that found that the state's statutory reimbursement schedule did not adequately compensate attorneys. Critics argued that the court's decision represented a case of judicial activism that overstepped the statutory intent of the law, which contained no reference to hourly fees. As a result, critics argued that the ruling created an environment that led to attorneys filing multiple petitions for benefits and prolonging cases to earn higher fees. A condition made worse by what some considered a low threshold for injured workers to qualify for permanent total disability benefits.