Another wind mit article in the Sun Sentinel

Nick please read…it proves the re-inspection process is so messed up. Time for NACHI to get pin there and make tings happen…

Btw, Alfred Pelletier is quoted in the article…

Good job Al.
It seems to me the inspection was done improperly the first time. This is why it so important to do it right the first time. Documentation is key. With permits there should be no problem verifying.

Just wait till the new Wind Mitigation requirements for a ‘CLIP’ rating take effect. The number of homeowners negatively impacted will be enormous. I honestly believe the Insurance industry has no idea of how many homeowners will be impacted.

Ball park: $100 decrease in premium for the easier shutter requirements. Will be ignored because of the $700 premium increase, now that they lost their “CLIP” rating.

You are mistaken. The insurance industry knows exactly how many homeowner’s will be impacted- and they are banking on it.

A lot will benefit with the new single wrap 2 and 1 nailing…

There Will be a lot of great discussions about the new form And the reinspections at the upcoming meeting in west palm beach. Watch for the upcoming details

You are a good person, but naive. NACHI would be scratched off like a tick on a dog. The insurance industry is as powerful as oil. The only fight is thru the public awareness, the media. Start feeding them with data/info. This is just a microcosm of how our country is operating. Special interest groups donate money for the politians to get elected, the elected officials make the laws for the special interest. READ this article, when goverments hire lobbist to get state officials to vote for them it seems somethig is wrong:

Miami-Dade Commission aims to cut lobbying tab, ends up paying $50,000 more
When the county commission set out to save money on its Tallahassee lobbying, the deal wound up costing it $50,000 more than the incumbents had offered.
Incumbent lobbyists in Tallahassee:
Ron L. Book P.A. and Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell P.A.
Book subcontracts with Pittman Law Group. Rutledge subcontracts with Becker & Poliakoff; Dutko Worldwide LLC; and Gomez Barker Associates.
Additional firms receiving state lobbying contracts:
Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson and Ballard Partners Inc.
Facing a tight budget, Miami-Dade commissioners launched plans this fall to ink new contracts with Tallahassee lobbying firms. Their goal: to slash spending.
The two firms that had the business offered to reduce their prices, but the county rebuffed them.
It was a costly decision. When commissioners doled out four lobbying agreements last week totaling $450,000, they wound up spending $50,000 more than the reduced price offered by the two incumbents.
After 90 minutes of debate and five failed motions, the vote was 10-3 — with Commission Chairman Joe Martinez voting against an initiative that he had spearheaded.
Also voting “no’’ on Dec. 19 were Commissioners Lynda Bell and Xavier Suarez, who argued for reduced spending.
“Nobody wants to cut out one of their friends,’’ Martinez said wearily from the dais. “Why doesn’t someone make a motion to defer and put us out of our misery?’’
In an interview afterward, Martinez added: “It was my item, but it didn’t turn out the way I expected. That’s why I voted against it.’’
Under the deal, sponsored by Commissioner Barbara Jordan, a team of lobbyists led by the two incumbent firms — Ron L. Book P.A. and Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell P.A. — were kept on, but were scaled back each to $170,000 a year from $225,000. Erased, too, was $50,000 for special projects, or “work orders.’’
Two additional firms — Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson and Ballard Partners Inc. — also were awarded contracts for $55,000 a year each. Akerman already does federal lobbying for the county. Book subcontracts with the Pittman Law Group. Rutledge subcontracts with Becker & Poliakoff, Dutko Worldwide LLC, and Gomez Barker Associates Inc. The one-year contracts come with annual options to renew for three years.
Besides the lobbying team, the county has its own government affairs staff and assistant county attorney Jess McCarty doing work in the state capital.
Brian Ballard said his firm won’t be doing work for the county on the casino issue. Ballard represents Genting Group, the Malaysian gambling giant that is pushing for legislation to permit destination resort casino gambling in the county, a pivotal issue now before the legislature.
Akerman partner Mike Abrams said in an email that his firm has represented a Genting affiliate, Bayfront 2011 Property, “in several real estate matters,’’ but has “not been contacted or engaged to lobby on behalf of Genting or any of its affiliates with the state government at any level, including the legislature.’’
The commission’s money-saving effort began a week into the county’s new lean budget for fiscal 2011-12. “The ominous specter of layoffs threatens employee morale and the county’s ability to deliver services to our residents,’’ Martinez said in an Oct. 7 letter to Mayor Carlos Gimenez, adding that to “drastically reduce’’ costs it would be necessary to advertise for lobbying firms through a competitive selection process.
In a bid to hang onto the lucrative and prestigious county work and to head off a competitive search, honchos at Ron L. Book P.A. and Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell offered on Oct. 24 to cut their annual contracts to $200,000 each, from $225,000. The firms took reductions in 2009 and 2010 as well.
Read more here:

I have 50 plus clients who will benefit from it and I have e mailed them all.
For a small processing fee, they will all save money.
It should be retroactive as it should have always been that way.

Seems to me the best course of action would be both, and if NACHI is the one feeding the articals to the media it will help increase awareness of NACHI and it’s inspectors. Done right it helps NACHI, the industry, the inspector and the public, four on one pitch is a grand slam isn’t it?

How easy do you all think it is going to be to get the photos that used to prove clip will be to get on old homes. It was not tough to get a shot of the strap an at least a nail the other side will be a real pain in the *** to shoot on old low roofs.

It is going to completely suck when you all start getting the calls from the insurance companies about what they "FEEL " is necessary. Do not forget the term visible and accessible has conveniently disappeared. How many of you will be holding a ruler next to the wraps???

What is excessive corrosion and how is it determined? Surface rust sure looks bad in a photo.

How many of you will go back for free to get that additional information that may be requested??? “NOT ME”

This new for is going to make wind mits hell and no one will even want to do them except those who “HAVE” to just to make a living.

Any of you crazy enough to think your main competition is going to raise their prices?

I personally am getting sick of it all.

I quit doing WM couple years ago when they first started diddling with the form. I would rather sell crotch salve on a street corner than mess with this crap.

You can see the nails in every picture of roof to wall that I take. Average time onsite for the inspection is 30min

Homeowners’ comments…

It seems to me there are two major issues. The first is that some inspectors are thinking they are doing the homeowners a favor by not doing a honest inspection the first time. Another issue is with all the negative media the home owners are very un educated on exactly what is going on .

This is not to say that there are noqt poor re inspections being done. where is human error and everything. If anyone ever has a question on a reinspection I would be more than happy to review it for you.

A re-inspection company re-inspected one of my old form inspections(2009), they did it wrong. The funny part is I took pictures even back then. They through me under the bus and I will fight everyone every step of the way. I have even offered to re-do the inspection, on the new 2012 form just to take away the flat roof. If I did something wrong, I admit it and correct it. Our QA usually does not let it through.

I have no issues with the re-inspection program, other than they should be 100% correct. They should be using only experience wind mit inspectors and their QA program sucks. Their customer/inspector service is even worse.
They can not continue to change their definitions every other week.

In your case John you may be in the right. But most of the time people loose credits due to an inspection done poorly (or false) before. A lot of inspectors give the homeowner A in opening protection when the front door is unprotected or the skylight. And believe it or not that have no protection at all. Another famous one is when an inspector gives single wraps and there is only 1 nail on one side and 1 nail on the other.

Again, I cant be sure about the reinspectors but I can tell you that there are a lot of initial inspections done wrong. Just last week I reviewed a reinspection for a local homeowner, the inspector he paid had A on opening protection but when you looked at tthe pictures it had a picture of a skylight labeled “unprotected”, the reinspection had “one or more glazed unprotected” and showed the skylight. The homeowner was upset with the reinspector even after I reviewed as a third party and explained it to them.

I agree that if you feel your in the right challenge the reinspection. It is very important that both sides do their job properly.