Another hip or other question

I have this inspection coming up on Monday and am curious to what you guys think this should be classified as. I’m guessing it’s going to be other and I’ll need to measure but I want to be sure if my clients question it. I haven’t been to the house yet.

IMG_0943.JPG

I am going to take an Educated guess and say other. How did you get 3 out of possible 4 elevation shots before the inspection? Might be close depending on whose method you use to measure the perimeter. Some folks have a different definition of perimeter in their minds than the traditional definition.

Thanks Michael, these are photos from MLS.

Ahh Good Luck :slight_smile:

That looks to be a newer home, maybe 10-15 years old. Was it designed (you haven’t inspected it yet to confirm compliance) to the Florida Building Code? If it was/is FBC compliant (emphasis added), roof geometry is irrelevant. Complete section 1(a) and you are done. No other sections of the form need be completed as compliance with the FBC exceeds or meets all mitigation techniques listed.

Now, if anyone has any evidence that a FBC approved roof covering, roof deck, or roof structure will fail when subject to at or below their design event simply due to the shape of the “roof” structure, they should provide that information to the Florida Building Commission so they know that they are approving roof coverings that fail when installed on homes with specific roof “shapes”.

………can’t wait to see that information.

I’m not that lucky, it was built in 98’. Box “b” would only be for homes built in areas along the coast in south Florida during that time correct?

Nope, any home can be “built in compliance with” the FBC as it is a deem to comply document. Factually, if the home was built in compliance with the SBC it may very well be FBC compliant as the 1997/99 SBC was used to develop the 2001 FBC.

If you have reservations about giving the home an 1(a) rating, you should forward the inspection to a RDP or Architect for your clients sake.

No. Many homes built outside of the HVHZ were designed to meet the 1994 SFBC. I know this because I helped build a few of them. After Andrew, many custom builders outside of the HVHZ used the 1994 SFBC to design and build their homes…a review of the approved construction docs should be able to tell you this.

Just some friendly advice, stop getting your education on wind mitigation from home inspectors and start researching the building codes. specifically, for starters, review the three chapters in the FBC Existing volume that cover retrofits and mitigation techniques as defined under Florida Statute 553.844.

Learn those and you’ll know more than any home inspector instructor…

For now, you can find more specific information on wind mitigation and roof geometry here: http://askwindmitigationman.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=55

Another article here: http://askwindmitigationman.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12

The wrong way to do it here, including use of an unapproved diagram: http://askwindmitigationman.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8

That’s great Robert, thank you! Wind mits do make me a bit apprehensive sometimes because I don’t want to miss something that could save someone good money over the long run. I’ll definitely study this more

No problem. Remember, you are the professional. You decide what information gets used with the form along with the required documentation. For lack of a better word, when it comes to completing the form, you are the “big dog”. Reinforce your positions with authoritative documents and approved building standards and let the chips fall where they may.

DO NOT get into, or comment on, credits or rate differentials as that is not your profession. You are there to inspect the home and provide the client with information on the homes installed, or lack of, mitigation techniques (defined under Florida statute 553.844).

Good luck….

Howard, Goodluck trying to prove a home outside the HVHZ is in compliance with a code that did not exist in that area at that time. One thing to remember, even if by chance the plans say designed to 1994 SFBC (which would not be many, if any) does that mean that all provisions were taken during construction and AHJ ? Is a Building Official and Plans examiner that dont know or follow the code inspecting to it?

Happens more than you would think. I know a few who frequent this board that have been able to do it. It’s not easy, most insurers have been convinced that they are the authority on building and construction in our state……can’t imagine who has taught them that.

It does take time and knowledge of the building code to accomplish. That level of work ethic isn’t typical for most inspectors. But, it does the home owner a valuable service. You can’t be a “the glass is half empty” type of inspector and accomplish this.

Have you ever tried to do this Preston? If not, how do you know it won’t work?

Like I said see my statements above. Proving a home is built to a 1994 standard in an area that had not adopted that code is literally impossible.

With that being said the year built may not be much of a credit if they have other credits. So it’s pretty much a mute point in most cases. For example if they received a qualified roof covering credit, roof deck attachment, roof to wall attachment, and opening protection, year built is almost meaningless

Preston, have you ever tried?

Like I was told at one of the conferences, no one has time to do any research on this - they just throw it back to the client to prove

I have used construction documents to prove to the insurance company(once) that a house was built to the SFBC. It was built before the FBC, the builder and engineer were from South Florida.

We go back to the simple point were most people diverge with Sheppard, a wind mitigation was never intended to be a code inspection.

Preston point is valid if it wasn’t properly inspected in-progress how does one know for sure? The simple answer is you don’t without destructive analysis.

The form clearly states: "***for homes located in the HVHZ (Miami-Dade or Broward counties)***, South Florida Building Code (SFBC-94)? "

As far as insurance companies are concerned, they should be free to give any discount they believe is warranted. They are required to give discounts that are required.

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”

For the sake of asking…could you define what a “code inspection” is? I’m generally interested in what your interpretation of the phrase would be?

If at all possible, could you use authoritative documents or verifiable sources to back up your response?

The form doesn’t list seam tape either, but I notice inspectors are marking 6(a) on the form for this feature. And I know for a fact you teach inspectors to do this. I also know not all insurers accept that criteria for a qualifying secondary water barrier. Follow the form, don’t follow the form…no wonder inspectors are so confused when it comes to completing the document.

Worth repeating.

Yes once and I did not look so smart. The form states for HVHZ only. So if it was accepted by the provider it would be a gift.

What are you trying to prove anyway? You either have the other credits or you dont. Again year built is mostly meaningless.

No comment…:cool:

All kidding aside, you do expose another issue that is rampant throughout the insurance industry…and it stems from a lack of trust.

Insurers don’t trust private inspectors, and for good reason. At a FHCF Workshop last year, a major insurance inspection company stated that all of their reports are unimpeachable because they only use “building inspectors” and “contractors” to perform their inspections. This was not accurate.

You are a qualified inspector, that means that an insurer “must accept as valid” a wind mitigation completed by you. Period! If they wish to “verify” the report, they insurer must pay for the inspection.

Truth is, they (insurers) don’t trust you (private inspectors) because you have such a bad rap. In 2010 a report was released that stated 55%-80% of wind mitigation reports contained “inaccurate information”. You (private inspectors) were/are blamed for this. Those with access at the state level promoted this ideology that only they (large insurance inspection companies) could provide the accurate information insurers wanted. And private inspectors lost out…they continue to lose out.

Rebuilding that trust may not be possible. Inspectors don’t want to listen, they want to do what they have always done…they don’t mind change just as long as they don’t have to do anything different.

Wind mitigations are down to $65, some are doing both wind mit/4-point for $95. The easier it is to produce the report, the less money you get…you are competing with companies that are using your own tactics against you, lesser levels of inspecting.