Using the following logic. In states that do not require E&O, inspectors purchase E&O to protect their business and assets. They do not buy it to protect the consumer. In states where E&O is required it is justified in the name of the consumer.
Do states with mandatory E&O have more claims?
Do inspectors loose the ability to work because an insurance company will not offer coverage?
I am sure you are correct they settle with your deductable and then raise your rates as you have had a claim. Know of many cases where this has happed even when told not too as it was not the HIs fault.
You are asking questions that have been asked many times before and the only ones who try to give answers are HIs and many of these do not want others to know what has happened to them . I expect most information received will be far from complete.
I too would love to have some factual information .
Listened to NACHI lawyer Mark Cohen at the NACHI Canadian Conference and got the impresion that this varies from one state to another big time .
It also varies if the HIs are insured ,if the HIs are Incorporated.
It looks to me like trying to take a bite out of an apple swinging on a string , Dam near impossible.
My own openion is having insurance get more law suits advertising you have insurance increases this even more .
Having had long discusions with many lawyers and experienced HIs ,put in a limited liability clause in your Contract do not let any one know if you have insurance.
If asks turn the question around and ask the client why they wish to know this information .
Tell the client that HIs insurance is not to protect the client it is to protect the HIs. If they continue to trey and find out if I have insurance I run FAST away from this client
I do not want to do an inspection for these kind of people .
Listen close to the Hair on the back of you head if it feels bad it is bad. Leave
On your Inspections Write hard Talk soft and Miss nothing .
Lets turn this around and can you show me facts to back up your thoughts .
I have tried for years to get more info and have had little success so I go on my instinct and have managed to get by for many moons some are Blue ones too.
I do know of two frivolous settlements that the insurance companies paid off instead of fighting.
(Nachi is great we can disagree and still be friends )
Well Roy, I have spoken with many Lawyers over the years, and have found them to be rather myopic and lacking much real life experience, and or many expieriences that I have had. That being said I am sure there are some clever Lawyers out there.
I have used a lot of logic over the years and it always seems to be the thing for me to follow when I can not get the proof.
Seems like many home Inspectors are voting in that direction too.
Gee logic some times is the best way to go .
Let me bring this back to center. They are passing mandatory E&O in Texas. Texas has a mandatory SoP. The Texas Real Estate Commission investigates complaints to that Standard. They favor the consumer. Anytime a ruling goes against an inspector it is labeled, by law, as negligent and incompetent behavior. That label is a death sentence in any subsequent court or arbitration proceeding.
I can take ANY inspection done in Texas, find a violation, get a ruling of negligent and incompetent behavior and cash the insurance check at the bank. The insurance company will NOT BE ABLE TO dispute the State opinion. They are screwed.
The E&O law in Texas is a gold mine.
I suspect such might exist in other states where State boards decide negligence.
The benefit of a jury state only is it is a battle of experts (bull****). However, in a state where a state boards decide compliance the inspector is totally and wholly screwed.
The Texas law will be devastating until it gets revised. The Texas Association of Realtors deny participation in this but I do not believe them. They want comprehensive inspections and miles of boilerplate disclaimer? Texas inspectors will give it to them. Poor consumer won’t know what to make of a report.
[FONT="]E&O was designed to protect business. When states take that and use it to protect the consumer it will fail. [/FONT]
Not the poll question John, but I will play along.
What happens now to HI’s in Texas that are found negligent by the board that have insurance?
What happens to HI’s now to HI’s that do not have insurance?
That’s an interesting scenario developing in Texas. Is there not already in place a program to reimburse any consurmer who’s inspector was found negligent? Do not all home inspectors in Texas pay into this fund? From what I understand that the program has several hundred thousands dollars in it. To get funds back to the consumer suffering damages, they have to sucessfully win in the arbitration case or whatever review board or jury used in Texas right?
Now, Im betting that if they do win and recover from the fund, the only thing that they are getting is something close to the value of the damages. Not much for an attorney to get excited about. Whereas with E&O, my goodness, look at all of the other things that could be claimed like 50 different kinds of emotional problems that NEED to taken care of. So a $10,000.00 problem becomes a $100,000.00 problem and an attorney is going to get 35% or more.
My bet, the trial attorney’s association is behind this 100% and pushing all of the buttons. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if many of people in the Real Estate Assoc aren’t hiding in the closet and helping out in stealth mode.
What becomes of the Recovery Fund Program and the money just sitting there?
Paul…I believe you are probably right on all accounts. With just a few days left in this legislative session and the mandatory E&O amendment tacked onto an otherwise popular bill then the likelihood of squashing this is pretty small. The bill will come up for final vote in the Senate sometime this week and, if I understand correctly, it’s already passed the House. I’m headed to the Senate offices in the morning to deliver a couple of hard copy opposition letters but since these are from me and one other inspector then they will surely be looked upon as sour grapes, even though I have E&O but don’t support the bill to make it mandatory.
What about this-
If we have to carry E&O (Bull’s eye) insurance.
How about getting the client to sign a departure procedure in which they agree for us to use the NACHI SOP in place of the Texas SOP.
This would (in theory) remove us from the possiblity of TREC disipanary action\rulings; in that, the NACHI SOP (unlike the TREC SOP) is in-enforcable by TREC lawyers.
John, remember the meeting 3 months ago?
Departure may be the only way for us to survive the next turn of events.