Actually, it can be a tough one. Define error? Is an error that favors the insurance company counted as an “error” in the statistical analysis? - or are only errors that favor the homeowner actually counted as errors? If errors favoring the insurance carrier are not actually counted as errors, then it would be logical that the mighty WCE’s and holy re-inspection firms would of course have a lower “error” rate, especially with their renowned “quality assurance” programs. Hmm? Something to consider.
No,
Here is how it goes down.
Home Inspector does not do the wind mit, the customer/Realtor needs the wind mit. I do the wind mit and guess who gets the next referral? And I am there to answer anything there is a question about. Because I am there last, the slightest misstep by an inspector opens the door for me.
So nobody should do wind mits, leave them for me.
I usually do not do just wind mits in season, we have too many full home inspections to do. We have two people booking appointments full time and they are over worked. We have three full time inspectors and two part time, while thinking of adding another.
So we do a few inspections, not to mention mold, radon, four points, roof certs, moisture intrusion and consulting.
Saying someone has single wraps when there are 100% clips.
Giving someone full shutter credit when they have none.
Checking the hip roof box when the house is 60% gable.
Saying 8d nails attached 6/6 when they have staples.
Saying a roof is 2001 FBC equivalent when it was replaced in 1994.
Those are the types of errors I’m talking about. Outright fraud.
I would have to agree. I have seen a lot of that
What about
Someone who has single wraps and are rated as clips
Giving someone gable when its 92% hip
Giving someone 6/6 when its 8d
Saying roof is 1994 when its a 2008
Are those considered “mistakes” by the insurance companies and the re-inspection companies?
It goes both ways, even though you refuse to see it. So when that happens is that “FRAUD” or just a mistake that can be just smoothed over.
But here is the kicker, the INSURANCE companies can overturn a wind mit is a heartbeat. Can the same be done for a false re-inspection?
What about saying no attic access, when there clearly is attic access?
Are you describing the MSFH program?.. The you are absolutly right!
Actually that is happening right now. MSFH was even worse.
Help me to understand. Your definition of “errors” would not include any errors that favor the insurance industry?
I believe that outright fraud is a character issue (or lack thereof). A 4 page form - or a 10 page form will not prevent someone with lack of morals from fraudulently completing a form.
Absolutely agree.
Yes, errors can be committed the opposite way, too, but there are less of those than the other way around. If there is attic access, and an inspector says there is none, that is fraud. However, if the access is blocked by ductwork, or the access point is located in a linen closet full of shelving, then that’s another story. In those cases, a homeowner would argue “but I DO have an attic!” without also mentioning, “but you can’t get in it…”
Homeowners always think they know more than the inspector when there’s a discrepency. I had to listen to a client last week berate me about her garage door. She insisted it was impact rated. I had a photo of the label showing ANSI/DASMA 108. So I had her walk out, look at the label, read it, and then look at the chart and explained the difference between a windload rated door vs impact rated. After that, she understood.
We can only report what we find, and hopefully help to educate the public. It is not our fault that the FORM requires more than the local building codes.
Same thing with SWR. All the roofers in this area say they install SWR and charge extra for it, and tout it as SWR on their invoice “save money on your insurance”. HOWEVER, they do not install tar paper over it. So, guess what? It’s NOT SWR. It is the primary underlayment and it has to be a 2nd barrier in order to qualify as SWR. So no one in my area should be given a SWR credit unless they can also prove tar paper was installed over it as required on the NOA doc. And no one here does that. I’m just waiting for a lawsuit on that one.
Don’t meant to appear like I am picking on you (not my intent), but, what data do you have to support your conclusion that majority of the errors favor the homeowner? If you have conclusive data that supports your position, please post here for all to see.
There should be a lawsuit as the OIR is in direct conflict with the building code as well as the manufacturer. All of the manufacturers state that you can install the peel and stick over the felt underlayment. The building code, at least in four different cities I am aware of, mandates it.
Evidently, this is yet another case of the OIR inventing their own interpretation of the English language.
Secondary water resistance.
sec·ond·ar·y (skn-dr)
adj.
1.
a. Of the second rank; not primary.
b. Inferior.
c. Minor; lesser.
2. Derived from what is primary or original: a secondary source; a secondary infection.
3. Of, relating to, or being the shorter flight feathers projecting along the inner edge of a bird’s wing.
4. Electricity Having an induced current that is generated by an inductively coupled primary. Used of a circuit or coil.
5. Chemistry Characterized or formed by replacement of two atoms or radicals within a molecule. Used of a compound.
6. Geology Produced from another mineral by decay or alteration.
7. Of or relating to a secondary school: secondary education.
8. Of or relating to a secondary color or colors.
9. Being a degree of health care intermediate between that offered in a physician’s office and that available at a research hospital, as the care typically offered at a clinic or community hospital.
10. Botany Of, relating to, or derived from a lateral meristem, especially a cambium.
So if there were two layers, one is primary, the other is secondary.
Eric, The way I am reading the verbage on the NOA, the proper order should be plywood, peel & stick, tar paper, shingles. So the peel & stick would be the secondary, and tar paper the primary. Everyone here installs the peel & stick directly to the plywood, then shingles right over it. :shock:
If I’m reading your comments correctly, in your area it’s: plywood, tar or felt, peel & stick, shingle.
Per the OIR definition, the SWR must be applied directly to the decking.
For anyone to actually get SWR credit on the OIR, in South Florida they would have to have: 4" peel & stick on the seams, then paper or felt, then peel & stick sheeting, then shingles. In our area, they would have to have: 4" peel & stick on seams, then peel & stick sheeting, then shingles.
Good luck with that! Make things easy on yourselves and save yourself a lot of explaining, and just mark “NO” or “Unknown” on the OIR.
You have to be careful using logic Eric. You may disrupt the industry.
-
If the majority of homeowners weren’t reaping financial benefits from wind mit inspections, there would be no demand for them.
-
If errors were in favor of the insurance companies, there would be no reason for spending millions of dollars on reinspection programs (by almost every single company in FL, not just Citizens).
-
My conclusion is based on the hundreds, possibly thousands, of wind mits we’ve done behind other inspectors.
It’s not data, just common sense.
Thank you for your clarification. Your statements are based on just common sense and your companies experience- not actually on industry data to support your position.
Your item number 2 above is redundant. Of course the insurance industry would not spend money or inspections that are already in their favor.
Based on your number 3 above, it would appear that your company is a hired gun for the insurance industry looking to find errors by going behind other inspectors. If that is the case, then of course your common sense and company’s experience would support your position regarding errors favoring the homeowner. Conversely, I would speculate, that a re-re inspector hired by the homeowner that goes behind a re-inspection firm hired by the insurance company would likely have a different common sense and company experience than yours.
That is exactly what it is and it is the code. I instruct anyone who is getting a new roof, to install the peel and stick, over the seams, or there will be no discount.
Here is a tile roof application. There is a layer of 30lb paper under the peel and stick, then the tiles are foamed on to the peel and stick. This is code compliant and by definition, the peel and stick is the secondary layer as the first layer, the one of most importance, is nailed to the deck.
This guy never did get his SWR credit and he is an attorney.
We will see what happens.
Not all WCEs are participating in this program. I do not agree with what is happening and I have filed complaints about the new program.
This is from our internal communications:
Citizens says that they will not accept another wind mitigation once they have re-inspected the property. What if your policyholder adds shutters? According to Citizens they must go back to the re-inspection company (that Citizens paid) to do the re-inspection and only they can UPDATE their home.
We completely disagree with this practice.
According to the Office of the Insurance Advocate,
"The Office of Insurance Regulation adopted the discounts in Rule 69O-170.017. The Rule also requires insurers to send a Notice of Premium Discounts for Hurricane Loss Mitigation, which contains a list of discounts with exact dollar savings, to all new and renewed policyholders. To qualify for a hurricane premium discount, consumers have to submit a completed Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection Form. The form must be accepted by all licensed residential property insurance companies in Florida.
You can report this by calling:
Division of Consumer Services
1-877-693-5236 or (850) 413-3089
Trisha,
If the peel and stick is applied directly to the roof deck then it is a SWR. Thats it. Nothing else matters. It does not say anywhere on the forum if and how much and what over lap is used on the felt.
The reason for an SWR is when the roof covering fails the wind cannot pull the peel in stick off the roof. The peel and stick prevents water from entering between the gaps in the playwood.
I do not agree that it should be that way.
Wood is NOT waterproofing therefore if all wood is not covered then it does not have Secondary water resistance.