HB 565 affects wind mit statute

Looks like HB 471 has been renamed HB 565.


see lines 1411-1420 for the added language for wind mitigation re-inspections.

Why only Citizens?

Good question. I would speculate that Citizens holds a large number of policies throughout the state and they are very influential. Since they are a quasi governmental entity and well connected to the lobbyists, bureaucrats, and legislators in Tallahassee, Citizens would have a greater possibility of getting this language introduced and codified. If and when approved, the other companies will scream that Citizens has an unfair advantage as they do not have to pay for a “re-inspection” program. Then, the other companies will follow via a “rule” from an unelected bureaucrat that will allow the private companies to steer business to the WCE’s -just like Citizens. Again, this is just speculation on my part as I am a conspiracy theorist home inspector;-)

Let me give you an example of how this process works:

G.W. Harrell of the Division of Professions (an unelected bureaucrat) at the request of a lobbyist (Nick Iarossi) acting on behalf of a WCE (Don Meyler Inspections) carefully crafted a Declaratory Statement (rule) that circumvented the spirit and intent of the ethics provisions in the home inspector licensing law. Mr. Harrell’s Dec. statement effectively undermines the integrity of the home inspection profession and long standing ethics provision by allowing DMI (or any other inspection firm that does not abide by long standing industry standard ethics provisions)to give kickbacks to insurance agents and brokers for insurance related inspection referrals.

“The language was re-introduced HB 565, I have not had time to speak with our legislative affairs contact but I see the language being introduced as something the consumer advocate may be pushing to effectively limit consumers coming to Citizens from being re-inspected………as it applies only to Citizens……… Just my take of course”

Interesting thought. I was under the impression that Citizens was trying to shed policy holders and shrink is total number of policy holders. If that is the legislative intent, then wouldn’t this “no re-inspection” language be counter to the stated goals of shrinking Citizens?