I know I should not let it bother me, Write it as I see it and move on. But I figure I would run it out there as a peer review.
Here is the quote from the agent
On #4 Roof to Wall Attachments he has “Other”. Even though that is on the form, the is no category in the programs to reflect other. By checking this, it would have to be as “G - unknown or
undetermined”, which increases the premium up by $1.900 for just that one thing. By what is has written on the inspection, it should be "C - single wraps because it has the 3 nails that are required. He also needs to take the comments off of the photos.
The agent is also questioning my frame/cbs calculations
The person that did your inspection has the house as 40 frame and 60 masonry. He needs to change it to reflect 75% masonry and 25% frame. The top is less than 33%, so it needs to be rated as a masonry home instead of frame. It actually is 26% frame
two story house with several gable ends, framed bump outs etc. I would like to know how they got the calculations.
I actually spoke to the agent, she said “their guy” never had these problems, she was giving me a hard time about the FBC credit she wanted it reflected as “a” on the report. The roof was done in 08, I attached the compliance letter and selected “B”. So anyway I actually asked for the number of the guy they use, called him up and had a chat, turns out he does not calculate the framed gable ends into the cbs/frame calculations, does not see an issue with selecting fbc compliance on a tile roof, etc etc.
So I am questioning myself, tell me I am wrong or right?
Looks like a clip to me. Has two nails and is wrapped over. As for the other calculations, did you submit a drawing with the dimensions of the house and how you arrived at the 60/40 split or did you just eyeball it. Without showing proof you have no defense of how you arrived at your calculations. As for you selection of B under roof type, you are correct. Selection A does not address tile roofs. If she wants to give the credits, she can do so with your compliance letter. Sounds like she needs a little training.
I also do not calculate Gables as part of the “wall construction”. Am I missing something here? If this is wrong I would like to know but I would also like someone to point me in the direction where it says in the training to calculate gable ends in the “wall construction” type.
Im not throwing down the gauntlet or saying who is in error. I just want some feedback as to when it was determined to calculate gables into the wall construction type and where it is documented in the training for wind mitigation.
Oh and on a side note I am not the guy that did the inspection Mr Dolin is refering to.
3 nails on one side up over one on the other is a wrap anything less is a clip by definition of the form. gables do not count in wall calculations. Now you know why they use the other guy. He gives them undeserved credits. All the agents care about is the sale.
I have a response from the OIR, (I was at the meeting in Tallahassee and am on there list as a person of interest) which reads that the legal/management team is still reviewing the tech terms of the form. Q #2 is still under review for clarity. This form may change soon.
The big problem is that the questions/answers are ambiguous.
There is no appeals board and in court the lawyers would eat this up. The MSFH program resource manual reads, “check to see that every tie down bracket is held by 3 or more nails.” Todays form does not read 4 nails so it could be argued. The Tallahassee meeting it was suggested to change the possible answer to approved metal connector and eliminate the clips, single wraps, dbl wraps etc… Bldg code today reg 3 nails on the face and one on the other side for a strap. This is not a code inspection so…
The MSFH did not ask for calculations on the gable wall as part of the wall construction. Things change…who defines the gable as the bldg wall or roof wall?
The form conflicts with the bldg code…this a lawyers dream. I could see arguments for both sides.
We should have an attorney at the Melbourne meeting to address our liability as inspectors answering a form which may change. How much in damages can we cost a homeowner if we answer wrong and their rates go up. Some may even loose their homes, especially those on a fixed income.
Do we follow blindly the trends; Do the research, speak to const lawyers, get things in writing…be as professional as possible. It has become clear to me why E & O insurance is sooooo expensive.
Here is my solution or at least best idea. Demand the OIR provides clear cut answers and how to obtain them SAFTELY. They need a phone line and internet site dedicated to answering questions from the field,agents, underwriters and homeowners.
The update as per Bill York at the Shishilla meeting was as follows:
Mark as “other” and describe the truss to wall attachment as a **clip **by current definition, but more particularly described as a strap with **two **nails on one side wrapped over the truss with **one **nail on the other. This will allow the underwriters to upgrade the attachment (without having to get a new mit report) from a clip to a single wrap if the current definition is revised as expected in the near future.
As illustrated by this thread among many others. Herein lies the problem(s).
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. All the instructions and definitions reads like the U.S. tax codes. Ambiguous, vague and deliberately confusing for everyone involved, from the inspector, the customers and even the underwriters. Another smashing job by a Florida government agency. How many times has the form changed now, this year alone and now possibly another change. With all the jumping you have to do through your own “grommet” the price isn’t worth all the aggravation and hassles, research not to mention the physical part of the inspection. Some are easy but some can be a Mutha.
I too would have called it a clip based on MSFH teachings. Specifically states 3 on one side, one on the other. Less than that was called a clip. Incidentally, if the strap is off-set from the truss beyond an inch; that too is improper and warrants a down-grade. I like the “other” concept with details explaining why, but have some concerns with abiguities. Clip credits versus strap credits can be nominal in monetary difference depending on underwriter. Ins. Agents love to arm chair quarterback; they make me appreciate my Realtors that much more.