Florida OIR wind mit form news

I don’t have any. Does anyone have any? I know the new form came up for review and have heard nothing since. I know INACHI has a course but no test for this because the state hasn’t yet made decisions on the form anybody got an update?

It appears in this instant… No news is good news. :smiley:

The hearing was to have the new form adopted and in place by Jan, 1 2010. This didn’t happn I believe our efforts prevailed on Dec 21st and I have sent in at the OIR request ideas for realistic revisions. They seemed really open to doing it right on that day. On another note, the pressure placed on Citizens with that $60 million NONBID contract cause the issue to be retracted. You can see on this link a News report that I participated in on the “re-inspection” issues.

http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/carmelcase/MI140957/

On my next post I will past the article on the newspaper about what happened with the $60 million contract.

Regards,

Jose’

This is it:

[FONT=Georgia]Citizens rethinks decision on no-bid contract[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia]Decision comes after a lawsuit and criticism over no-bid contract[/FONT]

By Julie Patel, Sun Sentinel
January 25, 2010

Citizens Property Insurance Corp.](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/economy-business-finance/citizens-property-insurance-corp.-ORCRP017229.topic) backtracked Monday on a no-bid contract it approved late last year and said it will rebid parts of the pact.

Officials from state-backed Citizens told board members that they will allow Inspection Depot in Jacksonville to start some of its inspection management work but will put the bulk of the project out for competitive bidding by late June.

The decision means Inspection Depot will be allowed to manage at least 500 home inspections to ensure policyholders actually qualify for the discounts they receive. The company will be paid a $25 administrative fee per inspection, adding up to more than $12,000. Under the deal approved by Citizens’ board in October, the company could have received up to $10 million for up to 400,000 inspections.

The about-face comes about a month after a potential competitor for the business filed a lawsuit against Citizens and days after Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/politics/alex-sink-PEPLT000007580.topic) urged Citizens Chairman Jim Malone to rework the contract, saying “taxpayers deserve that we get the best deal for the state.”

Carlos Lacasa, a Citizens board member from Miami, had also voiced concerns about it, voting against it.

But Citizens staffers had said an expedited vote was needed because the discounts add up to $700 million a year and the insurer is allowed to bypass competitive bidding in emergencies.

“That’s no emergency,” said Fred Bateman, an attorney representing SagoTec Group, a competing software company in Georgia that filed a lawsuit in Leon County over the decision. “An emergency is when we have a catastrophic hurricane and Citizens has to award a contract to help people keep a roof over their heads.”

The decision came during a Citizens board meeting in Tallahassee on Monday. Malone opened the meeting by addressing what he called a “brouhaha” over the contract: “This is something that is being pursued … with the appropriate oversight and controls.”

Separately, Citizens on Monday approved issuing up to $2.4 billion in bonds if needed if a major hurricane strikes this year by a vote of 4 to 3, with Lacasa, William Corry and Carol Everhart dissenting.

Julie Patel can be reached at 954-356-4667 and jpatel@sunsentinel.com.

It appears that all the research has shown that the majority of all those “inspectors” that were specifically allowed to sign the OIR B1 1802 per F.S. 627.711 were either incompetent, lacked training and understanding of the inspection process, or committed outright fraud. And yet, they excluded professional inspectors from doing these inspections in favor of a select group. Maybe now it is time for the state to recognize the “A” team inspectors (translated as us professional home inspectors that were excluded from the program by statute) and allow us to come in and clean up the mess.

Steve Taylor
Taylor Inspection Services, Inc.
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
904-206-0370
www.taylorinspectionservices.com

Right on Steve.

I think most everyone knows about my fight with MSFH, this issue and the drive-by re-inspections from the insurance companies hired guns the former WCE’s. Nick can attest to my activism, from letter writing campaigns, arguments in Tallahassee, TV News participation, writing to politicians, and trying to have all of us join forces.

At the end read a copy my letter to Alex Sink and others on the ongoing issue of the insurance companies taking work away from us and abuses to our citizens. Please everyone help by writing to you State Rep on this issue, obviously voicing out works. It has been proven On Dec 18, 2008 and on Dec 21, 2009 both times a NEW OIR-B1-1802 form was going to be adopted by the 1st of January the following year and it hasn’t happened because with the truth and with numbers we can be heard. The $60 million dollar fiasco didn’t happen–again and again.

See the News cast on this link: http://www.wsvn.com/features/article…case/MI140957/

Thursday, January 28, 2010
Florida Department of Financial Services
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee**, FL 32399-0300**

Attn: Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer State of Florida

**Re: Homeowners Insurance Company’s acting maliciously **

I write to you today to bring awareness of the latest acts that homeowner insurance companies in Florida are perpetrating on Floridians and against legal licensed professional businesses. I have recently learned from a licensed engineering firm in South Florida that one company in particular (Security First) is informing insurance agents that they need to have Uniform Wind Mitigation Inspections performed by one of two inspection companies (Ameripro or Skytech) coincidentally former WCE’s with the My Safe Florida Home Program.

It appears that the mechanics of coercion employed is to advise agents that no matter whom perform the inspection, Security First will still have either Ameripro or Skytech inspect the property anyways. In this particular instance I was informed about a homeowner had their home inspected and an OIR-B1-1802 form was filled out and signed off by a licensed professional engineer, furthermore the inspection company is qualified and licensed as an engineering firm in Florida. I am told that Security First assigned Ameripro to supposedly perform another inspection almost immediately after binding the policy, Ameripro informed Security First that they had not been able to make contact with the homeowner and therefore could not gain access to the property, Security First then stripped the homeowner of their Mitigation credits.

How is this legal? And I ask how is this ethical? Security First is driving business to two firms exclusively when Florida Law clearly indicates that a list of licensed professional that are allowed and qualified to perform and complete this inspection report. Does this mean that insurance companies can now take it upon themselves contrary to Florida Law and reject reports submitted by licensed professionals? In this case an Engineering firm and professional engineer.

Everyday more and more insurance companies are acting in this manner; it is plainly a conflict of interest. On Tuesday January 12, 2010 Ms. Carmel Cafiero investigational reporter with WSVN news aired a special report called Insurance Headaches dealing with the now famous re-inspections. During the broadcast Maikel Alfonso, Bankers Insurance stated** “They are only accepting inspections by a company they recommend.” **To whichTammy Torres, Division of Consumer Services responded, that’s not right Homeowners can choose any licensed professional to do their inspection, **“Under Florida law, you are not required to use a specific insurance or a specific inspection company.” **

Obviously homeowners by law are not required to use a specific inspection company it seems though that the insurance companies are strong arming the homeowners to do just that. This behavior is not only unethical but is directly affecting the very lives and economy of the professionals that are being discriminated upon, the same professional that pay into our economy for their continuing education, licensing, and insurance. Those professionals whose very livelihood depends on inspections and employ Floridians in their small businesses. The insurance companies are is short discriminating licensed professional, assisting in creating an industry monopoly, causing monetary damages to small businesses and the citizens they employ without any regards to the negative impact that is trickling down into our frail economy.

I call upon the Florida office of insurance regulations as the regulatory body of the insurance industry to investigate these acts and put a stop to it. I also call upon the Division of Consumer Services to protect the interest of the citizens of Florida as homeowners and professionals. It is unfair, unjust and it is not the example we want to give other States as the way business is done in Florida.

Sincerely,

Jose’ F. Uz, Ph.D., CRC, CPO, CHI, CHC, M-NFPA, NACHI, FHA INSP., InterNachi Cert. Fellow ABI
President
Caribbean ***Realty*Support Services, Inc.
Toll Free 866-261-2242
Serving 15 Florida Counties

Cc:** Kevin McCarty, Commissioner OIR **Kevin.McCarty@floir.com
**Michael Milnes, Deputy Director Property and Casualty OIR **Michael.Milnes@floir.com
**Stephen C. Fredickson, Assistant General Council OIR **Steve.Fredrickson@floir.com
**Tammy Torres, Division of Consumer Services **Tami.Torres@myfloridacfo.com
**Sean Michael Shaw Insurance Consumer Advocate **insuranceconsumeradvocate@fldfs.com
Carmel Cafiero, Reporter WSVN ccafiero@wsvn.com

  1. Fraud from those that are only after the money (quick fix) and would sign off on blank forms so that un-qualified individuals could profit.

  2. ALOT of bad inspections from the MSFH inspectors, not purposely just poorly trained.

  3. No standards or instructions on just what it is that the OIR or interested regulators wanted done. No specs, just thrown out for interpretation.

  4. Now, special interest taking advantage of the situation and exploit it by using their unjust riches and unjust influences on the insurance companies to double dip–what I mean is, they got paid via MSFH to inspect homes, now in many cases I would say they are being paid to re-inspect each other and themselves. Getting paid twice basically per home.

Regards,

Jose’

I have no idea who’s pulling the strings or what they are attempting to accomplish but a little common sense ought to be injected into the mix. Why not just have the inspector identify the structural components as they exist. Ages as they are determined and how. Protection as provided where and when and compliancy with the code for the area of the State and windzone. The current form does none of this. There is no reason this needs an engineering degree but as it is written currently it would lead anyone to beleive that. Uplift capacity? Tell me after the storm what uplift capacity failed or succeeded. I was around South Florida after hurricane Andrew and had to reinspect 40 homes I had previously inspected before the storm. Many block homes were devastated while frame constructed addittions to them were intact. I am in favor of enforcing stricter codes,I believe it would be in the best interests of the state, the homeowners and the Insurance firms if codes were tightened. But stricter codes will not help unless they are enforced. For years, 15? the code has required truss systems on 24" centers be sheathed with 19/32" panels and yet in all areas north of Palm Beach County the code has been ignored. How can the state expect more than it provides when it comes to upholding standards of construction. There is virtually nowhere in florida where 7/16" roof sheathing meets code and yet that is the BIG change in the new OIR 1802 form. Early on in the MSFH program the decree came down that the 1802 1/2" sheathing rule was to be marked off for 7/16 provided nailing patterns were the same. Who is fooling who? 1/2" still don’t cut it, it’s a full 3/32" shy.

This may shed some light on their thoughts::

http://bct.nrc.umass.edu/index.php/publications/by-title/choosing-between-oriented-strandboard-and-plywood/

I do agree that some of the older OSB and wafer products are garbage.

I read the full article John, informative but it didn’t change my perspective. I do see your point with respect to the capacity for uplift between the two materials. I have no problem with OSB untill it gets wet. I don’t think it ever ought to since it isn’t designed to. That’s another story for another time.

The newer OSB is better at handling moisture than the older stuff, but plywood usually will return to the original shape better.