Your statements are exagerrated as are your many claims about yourself.
I remember when you had that thread for a while “Ask Joe Ferry” where you pretended to give legal advice but concealed from everyone (according to my sources) the fact that you were paid a commission when they bought the recommended E&O insurance your legal advice would often refer to. When I asked if it were true and suggested that you disclose this fact at that time, you became equally upset with me.
In my opinion…the litigation aspect of our business exists, but not to the extent of paranoia that vendors who profit from such paranoia suggest. To what extent it really exists we will never know for you and the others who gain financially from the sale of E&O protect this information. The closest we have from you is your admission of the possibility of one trial sent to you by the two largest carriers over a year and a half.
So throw your dust in the air and snort your indignation at the insolent bastard who dares to challenge you.
Pretty good odds Joe. Only one poor sap left hanging so far. Suppose when all is said and done you could that poor bastards story, with his/her permission of course to shed some light on how these things work out.
Unfortunately, all parties have to agree to ADRS, and if there is the possibility of punitive damages being involved, the plaintiff’s counsel probably is not going to agree to ADRS. Courts can also order the parties to ADRS, but if the parties cannot agree during ADRS, then it’s back to the Court.
Which E&O vendor said that? I must have missed it.
Insurance rates are based on the cost of doing business, as any viable company should know. If one doesn’t know one’s cost of doing business, then one can’t charge appropriate rates to stay in business.
I dont think that exploring the realities of a lawsuit and trial is a 4H club project. If anything, It should reveal the value of both NACHIADRS and ClaimIntercept.
If nothing else, it should be a wake-up call. I am now fielding complaints from SELLERS against home inspectors for allegedly costing the seller a sale. With the housing marker changed from buyer’s to seller’s market, it’s more fun and games for the inspector.
One valid question revolved the need for a signed inspection agreement and E&O. In the case I mentioned, there is no agreement between the parties, as the seller has not retained the inspector. Would the E&O cover the inspector in this case?
First off, yes E&O would cover this. Unless there’s some indication of fraud on the part of the inspector, he/she should be covered in this situation. Despite the fact there is no legal duty to the seller, the inspector would be entitled to a defense.
Second, and unrelated to the aforementioned point, E&O premiums are based on projected losses the insurance company anticipates. Which of course has to do with claims experience. Let’s leave it at that.
Third, this thread is almost comical. I’m not getting involved in the mud slinging however
tsk…tsk…What professionalism. Since you started it…let me play, too, shyster.
In answer to your question, your reference to a “Four H Project” speaks for itself.
I suppose if they had slower ambulance drivers in your area, you would have more work and less time to grace us with your “legal advice” to purchase insurance from you.
What you call rendering a legal service of “claim interception” can not be anything more than acting as a claims adjuster for the insurance company that hires you…or, are you actually licensed to practice law in every state?
No need to, Ben. You have always been upfront and honest in disclosing your role as a vendor and your relationship with the company that pays you for providing customers.
Take another drink of scotch…clear your head from last night…and re-read your posts, shyster.
Is there anyone reading this thread that finds this ambulance chasing insurance salesman in favor of a NACHI Tv episode (that he refers to as a 4H Project) that enlightens us on the innerworkings of a trial involving a home inspector being sued? I cannot find it.
Let’s see…you personally attacked me for suggesting it, you refer to it as a 4-H Project several different times, and in post 17 you copy and paste my justification for such a program and - in apparent opposition -present your infomercial (aka “seminar”) where you charge people to listen to your sales presentation as an alternative…with your ridiculous claim “There is no living person who knows more about claims against home inspectors than I.”
And then, after these shots against it, you conclude for all - as an alternative to a NACHI Tv broadcast - “If you really want to know something about this issue, attend my seminar when it comes anywhere near you.”
Now…admit you are a shyster who milks money selling insurance under the guise of providing “legal advice”.
It has become immediately obvious why Nick hires Mr. Cohen for the important stuff.
Also…as to your “claim intercept” product…I see nothing but loss for whoever uses it.
A frivilous claim…one without merit…will cost an inspector your fees in determining it and (acting as a claims adjuster, since you are not lawfully able to provide legal services to people in every state) in adjusting it.
A legitimate claim has you eating up the deductable in the use of your services determining that it has legs, then you turning it over to the insurance company to handle.
In either scenerio…frivilous or legitimate claim…the inspector loses his deductable to you for every claim. Paying it to you instead of someone else might make you feel better…but where is the benefit?
ADRS is an annual fee of $90. An inspector pays nothing for a claim, unless it is found in favor of the claimant. This seems to be a much better deal, but you do not endorse it.
Is the definition of a good service, in your honored and respected “legal” opinion, only a service that puts money in your pocket?
Take a deep breath. Count backwards from 100. It’s obvious there’s a difference of opinion as wide as a chasm. I dont believe anything will be settled here (no pun intended).
My suggestion is to see what Valerie comes up with as far as subject matter and let’s all wait and see what the end-product looks like.
I’d like to see the production sans legal spin. Just blood and guts from a person on the receiving end of a suit, frivilous or otherwise.
Being a moron, a military lifer who is already a Spec4, after 20 years of service, you most likely do not know of multi-jurisdiction admission. The inspectors who avail themselves of my services are only too glad to pay me for getting rid of the claims that are lodged against them.
In 24 out of 25 cases that has been unnecessary. Of course, a moron like you who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing would not be able to comprehend that.
BTW, I have placed you on the NEVER INSURE list. You are too stupid to be insured by anyone. [BTW, anyone who spends a lifetime in the military as a JAG clerk and jerk - that is, not a REAL soldier - is a LOSER!)
Why don’t you ask them? I can assure you, moron, that they are considerably grateful to discover that they don’t have to spend thousands of dollars to find an attorney who a. understands the HI industry and b. can send the most belligerant claimant packing after one letter.
I don’t endorse it because it is dangerous for the inspector. ADRS is not approved by any E & O Insurance company. If an inspector avails himself of ADRS without the specific approval of her E & O Insurance Comany, he can be denied coverage. Being a moron, you wouldn’t know that.
