By the way…the more resistance there is to such a broadcast, the more evident is the need for it.
As the one and only attorney that the two largest insurance providers want all of their clients to contact when they receive a demand letter…Mr. Ferry has only received 27 contacts in a year and a half. And of them, only two went to trial…in a year and a half.
Of the two largest insurance providers…only two…in 18 months.
I think I can see why the providers of such services…and their vendors…keep such a tight lid on these numbers.
These are the kind of facts that probes like this can reveal or clarify.
Please don’t delude yourself. I wasn’t inviting you. In fact, I have removed your name from the EveryInspector database.
I was inviting the viewership of this thread.
If you think that the insurance premiums are overpriced, I invite you to exploit that market inefficiency and invest in those companies and make your fortune that way. If you think that the software is overpriced, I invite you to develop a more effective, more competitively priced version of your own. If it is any good, I will endorse it for you.
Not all judgments follow a trial. If one does not have the wherewithal to defend, one stands to suffer a default judgment. If the facts are not in dispute, one could suffer a summary judgment. Generally, those two fates befall one who is not insured.
What “really happens” in a trial based upon professional negligence is that, in 95% of the cases, the professional wins. That is across the board whether the professional is a doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, an accountant, an appraiser or a home inspector. The problem is that it costs a fortune for the professional to vindicate his professionalism.
That is the largest component of a professional liability premium, the cost of defense. And that is why insurance costs what it does.
Of course, the more successful the inspector, the more likely he is to have a claim lodged against him. Perhaps that is what accounts for your nonchalance.
Again…your offense at this proposed telecast is its main selling point. My interest in observing, first hand, the handling of a claim from demand letter to verdict - is greater now than it ever has been.
I stand corrected and change my earlier statement to all judgements come from the court. No mutual “settlement” would result in a catastrophic loss. It is that court process that some of us are interested in viewing on or own.
How could you remove Jim’s name from the "everyinspector"database? I’m sure you meant to say your mailing list.
Which insurance companies do you provide ClaimIntercept for, and tell us how it works!
Actually, I already kind of know how it works, but it would be beneficial for our members to know. I know you represent Elite’s clients, but which carriers do you represent?
Also…
Isnt attempting mediation and arbitration first favored by trial judges over clogging the court calendar?
Only those who are insured under the InterNACHI E & O program are permitted to contact me. I don’t know how many claims were presented to other insurers.
I didn’t say that “only two went to trial”. I said that only two had merit. Both were settled for that reason. The point you are missing is that it is not meritorious claims that are the problem. In my experience, they comprised less than 4% of the sample. The problem is the torrent of unmeritorious claims - over 96% in my experience. - and the need to defend them.
I have figured out how to get rid of them early with a minimal calorie burn. That is why I am the “the one and only attorney that the two largest insurance providers want all of their clients to contact when they receive a demand letter.”
TREC set up an inspector’s recover fund and it can only be paid out to those who
win a judgement in court. These results are published in the TREC newsletter
when they occur.
They do not happen often, but enough to get your attention.
The payout’s are sometimes fairly large.
If settlements never happen, then why fight laws that make inspectors liable
for their home inspections?
Please point out where I take “offense” at the proposed telecast. Knock yourself out.
My business model is to first ascertain whether or not a claim has merit. If it has merit, I negotiate the claimed damages. If it has no merit, I squash it out of the box. In 27 claims, 24 were aborted, 2 were paid and 1 is being defended vigorously. And following the HI’s certain vindication in that litigation, he is going to file suit against that attorney and her clients that will seek not only compensatory damages but bad faith tort damages, as well.
I don’t have it in a file. It is on my voice mail.
The gist of it is this. I sent the guy a go-away letter. He took offense to the tone which was several degrees north of moral outrage. But what he wanted me to know was that independent of my go-away letter, he had coincidentally unilaterally recommended to Allstate that it not pursue the claim. Mind you, he had sent the HI a demand letter not one week prior to getting my letter.
I’ve heard of the service you provide people who have E&O. I’ve also heard that your seminars are long commercials for that service that people pay to listen to. Your service, if I am not mistaken, is an hourly rate that is charged to their deductable…meaning that even frivolous claims will result in a charge to them from you.
In my opinion, ADRS offers a better service and is available to people who have E&O or who have not. I believe they have handled more cases with an even better track record…with no charge to the inspector but an annual fee of $90.
But that is neither here nor there.
The opportunity to see a real claim with real pre-inspection agreements being scrutinized…with the defenses that are so often discussed actually being presented in a court of law and ruled upon…should be very interesting and educational.
While it may possibly be true that “There is no living person who knows more about claims against home inspectors than” you, perhaps we can all (including you) learn from what to expect when a case actually goes to trial.
Nice video. I understood how it worked without seeing it, from our conversations in Colorado.
Regardless of arbitration and mediation, the information sounds quite valuable. The discount is also quite valuable. I am interested in knowing which companies offer underwriting discounts for implementing your five point program. If we use a different broker, but are insured through the same carrier, would the program apply?
Is it only through Elite or are other options available? Are we talking AIG, or other carriers (master carrier as opposed to National Union or Lexington individually)?
If AIG adopts this universally, it could be something great. Are you working on this? If AIG and their companies as the ones embracing ClaimIntercept then sign me up for the class! The 15% discount alone makes attendance worth the time and money. ROI is like 30 seconds!
If I don’t intervene, their deductible is charged. What is the point you are trying to make?
I know of no carrier that endorses ADRS. Utilizing the services of ADRS without the permission of one’s E & O carrier could invalidate one’s coverage.
The only reason that I am responding to your surpassingly and patently stupid posts is that I am concerned that your total lack of knowledge about either insurance or the law - and, I suspect, home inspection - coupled with your unparalleled willingness to spend vast hours of your day spreading your nonsense on this and other industry message boards will lead some innocent home inspectors astray.
E&O rates, as we just heard from an E&O vendor, are based upon the costly expense of trials which (in the last 18 months) he has not had to be involved with - as the only attorney that the two largest carriers refer people to when they get a demand letter.
While the rates are based upon expensive trials, however, the carriers revert to the less expensive (to them) means of “settlements”, whereby for the amount of the deductable, the claimant’s demand can be satisfied and the carrier saves the expense of trial. The insured, on the other hand, pays the deducatable as well as the premium ---- a premium we are told is based upon the expense of a trial—a trial that rarely, if ever, happens.
As I recall, you were the one who asked NACHI to set up an arbitration service a while back, so we did. NACHIADRS is the result.
While your comment is valid with regard to speaking to ANYONE with regard to a pending claim, some carriers do like the idea of arbitration. Since ADRS is both non-binding and not onerous to the client, it is a viable option for many, especially those without E&O. With E&O costs on the rise, and many not being able to afford it, ADRS may be an attractive alternative. As to endorsement by a carrier, we both know that arbitration through many services can easily reach the limits of one’s deductible, anyway.
Like you, our experience in dealing with disgruntled clients through the years typically runs in the plus column for ADRS members. Many claims turn out to be meritless, or the plaintiff simply finds it hard to assemble what is needed to launch a good case.
For us, if a mediated or arbitrated outcome cannot be acihieved, we forward all documentation to both parties. This way, they can bring it forward in the event of a court case. Like cheap discovery, with review and recommended outcome by a qualified neutral.
But, you are correct in that many carriers simply prohibit communication once a claim is tendered against an insured. Some carriers, however, will allow their client to retain their own attorney.
BTW Joe, I’m not slamming your service. If it works for the insured, its a good thing.
Well, now you have stepped away from the argument and taken a personal attack on my abilities as a home inspector. For an insurance salesman whose part time law practice is centered on a home inspection message board, I would expect as much.
Again…and mainly due to your obnoxious objections to it…I look forward to the NACHI Tv broadcast. I think we can all learn from it.
