You do have a standard. Everything you do is dictated by the Florida building code.
You said almost 0 lawsuits, which means there have been some lawsuits. in many instances of these never make it to court. Most of the time they get settled. I personally know of two roofs that have been replaced due to the bad inspection on insurance four points, Both paid for by the inspection company.
I also see I see inspectors, mostly contractors, giving up to 50 years of total life on tile roof systems in Miami-Dade and Broward counties and giving 25 years on shingle roofs. I was in a home down in FT Lauderdale and there was a roof certification sitting on the table by someone posting on this very thread that gave a 49 year roof 10 years of remaining life when there were signs of active leaks. And I see them giving the same thing on roofs that are installed wrong. I had one that the contractor gave 25 years to. It was a shingle roof that had modified installed over it. Tell me how inspectors do this and get away with it.
So the form and Internachi website don’t say that?
(you don’t have to call me “Mr. Sheppard”, we’re all friends here)
You appear to be speaking in circles. Are an attorney or a government official?
You just said that you are not interpreting anything. In Most all of your previous posts, it appears that your doing exactly that- interpreting statutes to support your position.
I will ask again, specifically, where is statute 455 or 489, respectively, is there a standard of practice for inspections for licensed contractors (div.1 of course)?
I will say it again. If you’re a Division I contractor your standards of practice is the Florida building code.
You said government official, not me. But either or is fine with me.
The statutes and FAC I posted are what they are, they are cut & paste so I’m not sure what I’m “interpreting”
Division 1 contractors have a standards of practice, it’s called the “Florida Building Code”. I’m rather surprised you didn’t know that. There is a current case I am assisting with against a division 1 contractor who performed a 4-point on a structure with a painted shingle roofing system that he gave 5-8 years of remaining life. The code is being used as his standard…and he will loose.
Again, it would appear that you are muddying the waters in an effort to support your position. The form (Citizens) and NACHI’s website may in fact state what we all can read. However, I do not believe that NACHI nor Citizens insurance dictate statute or laws. Please advise if my assumption is incorrect.
I am familiar with the FBC. I would agree that licensed contractors are required to comply with the FBC when constructing, remodeling, or repairing a structure within the scope of their license. However, please direct me to the section in their statute that mentions “inspection” as within the scope of their license. Furthermore, please direct me to the statute that mentions 4 point insurance inspections and enumerates at standard of practice for completing such inspection. One last rhetorical question, if licensed contractors (simply by possessing a contractors license) are competent to perform code compliance inspections, why would the legislature see fit to develop legislation to require building code administrators and building inspectors to verify code compliance of work constructed by contractors?
Finally, as I am sure you know, most 4 point inspections are required on older homes (varying ages from one insurance company to the next). As the building code is updated approximately every three years, to which version of the code is the licensed contractor (or the licensed home inspector) certifying the home to be in compliance with? Also, as I am sure you know, the “Florida Building Code” did not exist until March 1, 2002 (if I am not mistaken). Homes built prior to that were constructed under whatever version of the SBCCI edition the respective jurisdiction had adopted at that time.
With respect to the “case” you cited above, again speculation on your part. If the division 1 contractor is in danger of losing the case base on the facts you have cited above, I would speculate that the contractor is not being represented by competent counsel (even without looking at the specifics of the case).
are all these lawsuit you guys keep referencing only from the insurance inspection alone or with new purchase along with the home inspection?
also, most insurance carriers send there own crew by the property to do there own 4pt’s and verify wind mit. credits. I have done them for the carriers. So, just because the “independent” inspector “approves” the roof, it is always up to the carrier/underwriter… at the end of the day.
But… when these are done for a new buyer… I agree, the liability is the same as an HI
You do not appear to be familar with the FBC, if you were the statement that “why would the legislature see fit to develop legislation to require building code administrators and building inspectors to verify code compliance of work constructed by contractors” would have never come out of your mouth. This is a false assumption, anyone familar with the first chapter of the FBC knows this. A “inspection” is widely defined as most contractors will be required to inspect a property or structure to supply an estimate or assessment based off of findings.
That being said, we owe our profession to contractors as they were the first home inspectors when there was no licensing requirements. Far to often home inspectors want to give contractors a black-eye over not being versed on older codes or having written standards spelled out the way home inspectors do.
When it comes to 4-points, part of what the form asks for is “updates”. These updates are what is being inspected and determined to be properly installed and functioning as intended. Unpermitted installations and updates are considered a safety hazard to occupants as they are classified as “unsafe structure”. With your obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to even the first chapter of the FBC I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
The FBC came into existance/adoption 01/01/2002 but is a direct copy of the IRC(references are still listed in the FBC. they will be in [IRC] blocks) among other versions of code including the SFBC, SBC, and IBC. We are falling behind as the IRC is not more stringent and updated at regular intervals.
I’m not sure what you guys want out of this. The questions is, was, and always will be “as HI’s are we required to follow the standards and statutes of our licensing when inspecting a structure?”. The answer is yes. Some would like to “muddy the water” by stating a 4-point or a 1802 isn’t an inspection…but it is. Some want to say “it’s not a home inspection”, even though they must inspect the home to complete the form. They need to be told, to be held by the hand and walked through the process of understanding what is blatantly clear.
This has been a good discussion. It highlights the varying opinions in the industry concerning inspections and what constitutes a “home inspection” vs ancillary inspections as defined by statute.
As for your assumptions in your post above, again, your are attempting to “muddy the waters” to support your position. I completely agree with you that contractors have historically done “inspections” of properties for the purposes of providing estimates for repairs, additions, renovations, etc… I also agree with your statement that professional home inspectors owe our profession to contractors - just not for the reason you stated. I can also assure you that home inspectors were doing home inspections long before licensing- just as contractors were doing contracting long before contractor licensing. Many people here, yourself included, misinterpret my concerns with contractors doing inspections as a hatred for contractors. Quite the contrary, I strongly believe that all persons doing inspections in the private sector (home inspectors or contractors) should ALL be playing by the same set of rules. Right now, I do not believe that is the case.
With respect to your comment above relating to 4 points and “updates”. I would appear that you are lacking a fundamental understanding of the purpose of a 4 pt. inspection. Are you suggesting that only updates are being inspected when conducting a 4 point inspection?
The FBC actually came into effect on March 1, 2002- not January 1, 2002 (if I am not mistaken). Knowing adoption and effective dates of code versions should be critical in your world of inspections.
In answer to your final question as to what I/we want out of this conversation, I would like to see clear guidance provided in writing by DBPR via rule or Declaratory Statement or even clean up of the Statutes via the Legislature- rather than from an armchair quarterback. If we can get clear direction from DBPR on this issue and it is in line with your assertions, please feel free to say “I told you so”.
The FBC was adopted 03/01/2002…that was my typo.
The contractor reference was just statement, not so much blaming you.
“I told you so” isn’t my style. Despite what everyone thinks, we are on the same team.
I used the statutes and FAC to prove my point, when rebutals are posted it’s pretty much opinion only with no references. Wonder why?
The DBPR didn’t decide who was qualified to perform 1802s or 4-points/roof certs, the insurer’s made the determination. They based that decision off of the qualifications and statutes of our licensing…how could this be in dispute?
Now, inspectors want to reverse the process and claim it’s the insurer who granted us approval of our licensure and not the DBPR. They(DBPR) have no reason to comment on this issue as they were not the one’s who granted us approval to perform inspections of this nature(insurance)…that needs to come from the insurer’s or the OIR. Good luck with that, we have been trying for over 2 years just to get a comment from the OIR.
Do you really think insurer’s are going to make a statement that would relinquish liability for persons performing insurance inspections? Really? Think from a business standpoint, as an insurer, if you could get out of a claim by impeaching the inspection…wouldn’t you? You bet you bullocks to a barn dance you would! It’s just that simple…
No hard feelings. I agree we are on the same team. The way I see it, it is a win either way. Either I am correct and insurance relating inspections are not currently defined and regulated in the home inspection statute- or you are right and they are currently regulated in the home inspection statute. Either way, I really don’t care- as long as the State, DBPR, etc… provides CLEAR guidance and parameters on the issue. As this discussion clearly demonstrates, there are varying opinions on the issue.
While I agree that you have clearly cited statutes, I question your application of the statutes. Again, no hard feelings. We are all seeking the correct answers.
Hey, I found a home additions miami company that will solve the renovation problem.