Anyone have a copy of the letter that states that?
Gentlemen,
There was likely no mistake made by the “re-inspector”. We all know the true intent of the “re-inspection” program is to take back discounts from the people in the name of “quality assurance”. The “re-inspectors” will not bite the hand that feeds them.
Hey now, I know a few that will not pull that crap. Well at least one. 
I don’t think this was a re-inspection. The other thing (just in general) either you have the credits or you don’t. How does a re-inspection change that?
It was a reinspection. A very poor re inspection…If any of us were to provide this inspection, we would be returning to take better pics or never be recommended again.
The client had credits from a much earlier report. The underwriter re inspected. The reinspection paid for by the underwriter marked :
"OTHER, There are wraps that do not wrap over and secure to the opposite side."
That is an exact quote. The agent is trying to help an elderly client hold on to some of her discounts.
I
Sounds like a Citizen’s reinspection. Inspectors in the reinspection program have been directed by Citizen’s to mark these as other, not as clips.
Interesting…sounds like a class-action lawsuit is in order if this is the case, especially if marking “other” will most likely remove the credit. A strap embedded in the bond beam and nailed on one side, DOES meet the criteria for a clip rating.
Customer called yesterday, his house was re-inspected from a wind mit we did two years ago. The inspector went thru all his shutter panels ( stacked in garage) and found two that had no label on them. They took his credit away for the shutter protection.
So to re-hash; we too rate straps that do not wrap as clips; however, when the strap is embedded but off-set from the truss end we rate as other and provide a reason and photo to document. I have encouraged clients to follow up with underwrite just like the tile letter. On three occaisions, the underwriter has provided clip credits with straps off-set from the truss. Anyone else found this to be true?
Can’t bloody wait for the new revised form — no more braced gable crap, no more flat roof determinations, but oh yea; we gotta figure out if its a ring shank…
Who’s up for bringing back $125 wind mits in here! Doing the take-off alone is worth it and I actually call a building department when web-sites lack information. Food for thought or discussion by the Florida Insurance inspectors forum.
I believe we should do all we can to make sure those dangerous and deadly attic picture requirements are removed from the next form. I believe having to identify the type of nail is just as ridiculous and way to dangerous to try to do. the 8D or better identifier is all that is needed.
You all must stand up to stop the crap on this next form.
Sounds like one I had. Carpenters regularly carry 6d common nails with them to tack plywood down as they lay it. Then come back and nail off with 8d commons, ring or spiral shank nails from the nail gun. Re-inspector hunted and found one 6 penny common that carpenter used to tack plywood down and took away the 8d credit. We fought and won that one but just a pain in the neck for 120 bucks.
I circle them. I had an agent tell me they could see the strap nails clearly so I blew the pic up and put arrows pointing to the nails today.
It seems they want to pull credits for any reason. We really are at the mercy of the insurance companies.
Any word on the new form???
You are not and do not have to be.
Make damn sure you stand up for every time you are right and demand that the insurance companies follow the form. You do not have to provide 1 more thing than that form states.
If the dumb-asses cannot understand the picture that is their problem. Then they must send out an inspector on their own dime. Jump thru every hoop they throw and then yes you will be at their mercy.