Insurance Inspections in the News

Unfortunately I would have probably been better off than going to DR. Bell. He screwed me for life :frowning:

Have fun on the boat. The waterway up there is amazing and teeming with life.

Bet you see Dolphins :slight_smile:

Thanks, Eric.

So, it looks like in HB 565 (…

Insurers can require mitigation forms provided to the insurer by mitigation inspectors or a mitigation inspection company be independently verified for quality assurance purposes before accepting the mitigation form as valid. The insurer must pay for the independent verification.41 At their expense, insurers can also independently verify, for quality assurance purposes, mitigation forms submitted by policyholders or insurance agents.

The bill provides an exception to the mitigation form independent verification process for Citizens only. The bill does not allow independent verification of mitigation discount forms submitted to Citizens if a quality assurance program approved by Citizens reviewed and verified the form when it was submitted. Similarly, the bill allows insurers, including Citizens, to exempt from verification mitigation discount forms from a mitigation inspector or inspection company with a quality assurance program. In addition, Citizens is not allowed to reinspect a property to confirm mitigation features if the mitigation form was reviewed and verified by a quality assurance program approved by them.

and in HB 1109 (…

Current law requires insurers to provide property insurance discounts for properties with mitigation features. To get the discount, policyholders submit a mitigation form to the insurer substantiating mitigation features. Home inspectors, building code inspectors, contractors, engineers, architects, and any persons determined to be qualified by the insurer can complete a mitigation form. The bill allows the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a license for an insurance agent, insurance adjuster, customer service representative, service representative, or managing general agent if the agency finds the person directly or indirectly accepted any type of fee for referring a homeowner to an inspection company for a property insurance related home inspection.

Also, Licensed Home Inspectors would be prevented from performing certain Roof Condition Certifications.

Is this about right (not just you but anyone who knows)?

Just curious, How can a currently licensed home inspector be qualified to do a home inspection (which I believe includes the roof, roof coverings, and their condition) and with this proposed legislation- not be qualified to perform a roof inspection?

It is the first block. Remove the ability to inspect a major component of the home. Then, all of the other blocks, electric, by electrician only, which I thought would be the first one, plumbing, plumber only, and hvac, will fall.

After those are eliminated, then what is a home inspection? Open the doors and windows and run the appliances. At which point, there really is no need for a home inspector.

I hope that the lowly licensed home inspectors who are constituents (voters) in the bill sponsor’s district take the time to call their elected representative to voice their concerns with the language in his bill that prohibits home inspectors from doing these inspections. In fact, since this language is harmful to ALL of us lowly licensed home inspectors throughout the entire state, perhaps we ALL should call and email his office and jam his phone and email to voice our concerns. We could also point out that the language in his proposed bill is in conflict and contradictory to statutes in place now that allow home inspectors to do roof inspections. Specifically, the home inspector licensing statute as well as the insurance statute (627.711) that specifically lists licensed home inspectors as authorized to conduct wind mitigation inspections. If I am not mistaken, doesn’t wind mitigation inspections include inspection of the roof coverings?

Nope it just means checking the paperwork. I never inspect a roof during a wind mitigation inspection.

I just look from the ground that the roof covering is the same as what is listed on the permits if they have or provide any.

(1) For homeowners’ insurance, notwithstanding s.
90 627.7011, insurers other than the Citizens Property Insurance
91 Corporation may issue a policy or endorsement, or renew a
92 policy, providing that any loss relating to the property’s roof
93 covering that is repaired or replaced will be adjusted on the
94 basis of actual cash value if the roof covering:
95 (a) Is constructed out of material other than tile, slate,
96 clay, concrete, or metal.
97 (b) Is more than 20 but less than 25 years old.
98 © Has not been replaced within the previous 25 years.
99 (d) Has less than 3 years of remaining useful life as
100 certified by a qualified inspector.

(5) For purposes of this section, a person is a qualified
171 inspector if the person is:
172 (a) A general, residential, building, or roofing
173 contractor licensed under chapter 489;
174 (b) A building inspector licensed under chapter 468;
175 © An architect licensed under chapter 481; or
176 (d) A building code enforcement official licensed under
177 chapter 468.

Now - as I understand this - This is for roofs between 20-25 years that have been deemed to have a life expectancy of < 3 years. They can get insurance but the payout on roofs will be diminished.

And a code enforcement official is qualified to make that determination? Or even an architect? How in the world do they come to that conclusion?

You are mistaken. It just means checking the paperwork. I never inspect a roof during a wind mitigation inspection.

I just look from the ground that the roof covering is the same as what is listed on the permits if they have or provide any.


I do not know ANYONE who climbs up onto a roof during a wind mitigation. What course is that from?

I can tell you for damn sure the hack re-inspector that came to my house did not either.

Now I do know for a fact thet MANY insurance companies use a wind mitigation to determine their own opinion of the roof purely based on age FROM LAST PERMIT.

Several people in the last class I taught at COA-Orlando said they usually go on the roof.

Teaching one next weekend, we will see if anyone else says the same.

What do you do?

No we do not walk roofs for a wind mit.

I don’t walk roofs either if just doing a WM. I do however take a photo of the tie-in to secondary roof coverings to show the covering types listed. The WM only verifies if the covering is FBC or not and puts an age on it (if known)…nothing else really. The CIT-RCF will note condition and leaks along with the age and RUL.

If this bill goes through, does anybody think that DFS will nullify the DMI kickback declatory statement? Hope so…

If I am not mistaken, the DMI kickback declaratory statement will remain in effect and allow DMI and other companies with similar business/ethics models to offer kickbacks. The above bill, if signed into law unchanged, will make it illegal for the insurance industry to accept the kickbacks.

Sort of a “catch-22”, huh? :wink:

I suspect the bills will be modified. If things work out the way I want, the parts that affect home inspectors will be removed as they are in direct conflict with the existing home inspection laws.

I would have to ask them if it is a stand alone wind mit or part of a home inspection.

Going by the wind mit form, I can’t see any reason to walk the roof, with the exception of measuring any non-hip feature.