Citizens Fast one, Call to action!

I was enformed that Citizens will NOT except any new inspections on a re-inspected home. I heard this directly from Citizens Underwriter.

They consider any issues with a re-inspection a ‘dispute’. They then require the homeowner to** pay the re-inspection firm to come back**.

If the homeowner elects to hire a private inspection firm, the private inspection firm’s inspection will not be excepted.

An agent brought this to my attention. I immediately contacted Citizens for confirmation. I was patched through to underwriting who confirmed this policy.

This is the reason we need to be involved and support our Legislative agenda.

The homeowner will have to do what my neighbor did.
Get the proof, submit it to the agent and threaten a fraud charge against the inspector and the insurance company.
She got her credits.
She got the plans to her home, had a nice, friendly neighbor;-), take a picture of the single wrap, and then got her discounts.

That sounds crooked as heck. Bring on the lawsuit. I would love to see those scumbags get what they deserve.


In my humble opinion, this is what we should be contacting our State Representatives about.

This is a real unfair advantage. Homeowners, who can only be insured by Citizens are unable to use private inspectors. Then have to pay the same re-inspectors to return and try to fix what they got wrong the first time.

That is what I pointed out to the underwriter. She squirmed around it and said, they consider the situation a dispute. That their dispute policy would ignore the new inspection. That the homeowner would have to pay the re-inspection firm to return.

Let me repeat, the homeowner would have to PAY the reinspection firm to returm.

That’s just plain wrong.


Yeah, not the first time she has been wrong. I remember a Fabi seminar 16 months ago where she and I had a short conversation regarding their policy of not insuring any homes with aluminum wiring. My point was that there were UL approved methodologys for correcting the condition without replacing all the wiring.

She insisted that those homeowners could simply go elsewhere for insurance. But I pointed out that Citizens was an insurer of last resort. They did change that policy I think in march last year. They will have no choice but to change this one too. It is illegal. But I bet the reinspectors just love it. My viewpoint is that reinspectors should not have contracts with insurance companies. The companies should be forced to pick inspectors from the area of the inspection the same as the homeowners.

Contracts may be coersive since what they want is to limit the credits and the reinspectors know it.

Jay I am in contact with a law firm in WPB and I have the lawyers cell phone number. He asked to speak to a member who had some problems and they had a chat. They are presently in their discovery phase, but once the lawsuits is confirmed valid he will want more info.

I will contact him mid next week just to let him know we are here with support.

Excellent. I will be very happy to assist.

I consider this the most serious attack on home inspectors we face.

If insurance providers are allowed toget away with this policy. THey will eventually put an end to all private insurance inspection providers. They can effectively remove all discounts that homeowner are entitled to.

Think about the previous clip/other debate. Thousands of homeowners lost credits because re-inspection firms made a po icy decision that was not defined in the 1802.

Under the Citizens dispute policy, homeowner would have to pay the Citizens inspector. Not the inspector choosen by the homeowner. If that re-inspection firm adopts some policy NOT defined on the Wind Mitigation form, theCitizens policy holder is now held to a standard not determined by the OIR.

Russell, you, John, Preston, and I, sat in the Tallahasse OIR meeting when the OIR stated that the most recent inspection nulfies all previous inspections.
It was the only item we and DMI agreed upon. Iguess they have changed their minds for a little more cash.

That firm actually contacted me asking me if I could comment on fraudulent charges to inspectors from a certain reinspection company. They wanted to expose a Florida based company specifically

I get them turned over all the time. That policy is illegal and crooked. WCE was cited in a recent newspaper article for granting credits on the retail side, ( for a fee paid by the homeowner) and then removing the credits on the same property, ( For a fee paid By the Carrier) Most homeowners who get a** raped by the crooked WCE will def. not cut them a check to after the violation.

It continues to amaze me how the insurance and WCE lobbyists continue to sell to the legislature that we are the ones committing all the errors and fraud with respect to wind mitigation inspections. Clearly, the WCE’s are responsible for the vast majority of total inspections in the wind mitigation scheme. It is only logical that they are the ones with the highest errors and fraud. (of course- errors and fraud are only counted when they favor the homeowner- errors and fraud that favor the insurance industry are not actually errors or fraud) The legislators are being played while we (small business owners) and the citizens for Florida are being screwed by the OIR. Citizens, Retail insurance industry, and the mighty WCE’s.

Here are details from Citizens website.

Wind inspection results, especially for roof to wall connections and deck attachments, are purely based on how extensively the inspector identifies features. If you are only looking at the masonry attachments, and miss the steel or wood beam at the lanai, then you’re not going to find the weakest attachment. Or if you only look at 6 attachments, and another inspector looks at 20, your results may be different.

The majority of inspections done today vs 4 years ago, even on the retail side, will be different. The form has changed dramatically. We are now seeing wind mits that were done 5 years ago, whose forms have now “expired” needing a reinspection. In most cases, they will probably lose some of the discounts they got 5 years ago. And we did the original inspection.

Many items are still the Same. Most (actually all) inspections I have seen from 4 years ago were done wrong. The inspector gave them roof covering, full opening protection, and a roof to wall credit they didn’t deserve. I don’t think most inspectors even went inside the house or left the truck. Two page form that didn’t require pictures was a joke.

The two page form had nothing to do with lack of moral character for those that did drive by inspections. You cannot correct lack of moral character with forms or legislation.

Hello Trish, Glad you ventured back. :wink:

That is a good point you make. Changes in the definition on the forms or developing industry standards will always lead to different results.

Unfortunately, those changes (along with legitamate errors) are being used to justify the re-inspection program.

I myself, recognize the industry’s need to re-inspect. It keeps the field level for legitamte and honest inspectors.

**I do NOT support Citizens new tactic. **

First, the re-inspector has no responsibility or accountability to the Homeowner to get it right.

Second, the homeowner is denied their right under the LAW to have their home inspected at their expense. They are forced into PAYING the re-inspection firm and arguing with the underwriter.

Both of which we are not naive enough to believe have the Homeowners interest in mind.

Those such as myself, see Homeowners loose legitamate credits due to poorly motivated and inexperience re-inspectors. Homowners whose only recourse is to get a new inspection by private inspection companies. Citizens new tactic is all about keeping a lid on the failures in their re-inspection program.

That lid will be blown off and in a big way if a few complaints to the AG are made. Of course, one has to wonder what how far she will pursue anything. :wink:
I suspect this will end up in the courts if the client is forced to hire an independent inspector to verify the findings.I thought pictures were supposed to solve all this…guess not!

Good points all. I do believe the insurance companies have every reason to doubt the validity of most of the older inspections done. I don’t believe that all the errors that benefitted homeowner discounts were honest errors, this thing has been full of fraud and negligence from day one. Remember the ads that encouraged homeowners to pay for the wind mit that was free if they didn’t get a discount? I don’t know about others but straps don’t qualify on about 20% of the older homes I look at in my area that are CBS.

I would not say it is fair for reinspectors to crawl an attic until they find a slightly mispositioned strap then claim a previously conducted inspection was improperly done, fraudulent or negligent, but if the inspector enters an attic in the garage and it isn’t insulated and 20 are clearly visible all of them should count. The photo should not be of the ones that do comply only.

This thing started out as a way for the public to learn more about the capability of their homes to withstand windstorms, so they could learn how they could reinforce their homes. The DFS bastardized it (to garner public interest) into the 1802 form and discounts. It went downhill from there. Regardless of the justification for reinspectors and the obvious faultiness of the program,form and inspectors, forcing homeowners to use any specific service provider at their own expense is not legal.

it is my understanding that if a homeowner disagrees with the reinspection findings, they can request a reinspection of the reinspection (it will only be approved for good reason, though, not “just because” they didn’t like the outcome. Those are done for free (and the inspector that goes out makes nothing either).

The only time they have to pay is for a remediation inspection: so let’s say it was discovered that one glazed opening had no protection. They then had a shutter installed, after the fact, to earn that credit back. An inspector would go out and reinspect only the items that were remediated.