I’ve never had to worry about a claim but from the purchasing and service point of view this is correct. I searched high and low this past year for a new carrier and without a doubt Inspector Pro/Citadel Insurance shined brightly in that search. I had a WHOLE LOT of questions for them and they answered them all. I wanted a sample policy for what I was buying and they provided it. That led to a WHOLE LOT of other questions they gladly answered.
In the end selecting them was a real no brainer!
Nothing I say adds up to a hill of beans in comparison to how your insurance underwriter handled your claim and who they revealed your claim to. Those are the ultimate tests of any insurance provider.
So, InspectorPro vs. Elite MGA?
Now this is very interesting and definitely adds more unknowns to this story.
Then you must have asked them who your insurance carrier was, in case you ever had a claim? Who is it?
Anyone else want to take a guess
Citadel
Insurance companies are regulated by the individual states they are permitted to sell policies in, and every state requires that the insurance policy that is sold in that state bears the complete name and contact information of the permitted insurance provider that is issuing/underwriting the policy.
Brokers do not represent insurance companies in the purchase of a policy. They represent the party for whom they are purchasing the policy. Agents, on the other hand, are agents of the company that issues the policy and represent their employer.
None of this is a mystery and all of it is available to anyone who takes the time to read their insurance policy.
The bottom line is, Nick bought back a house that he didn’t have to. This makes up for a house he refused to buy back last year, and from which the participating inspector ended up getting sued by his client who demanded, and failed to receive, the promised buyback “guarantee”, IMO.
In this instance, the home inspector was not liable for the loss complained by his customer, according to his insurance provider, and would have had his legal expenses (or settlement) paid by the insurance provider if he were sued. The customer not only chose not to sue the inspector but felt confident enough to hire the inspector to report on another house afterward. No inspector was left in the cold by an insurance company, as implied, and Nick now owns a structurally deficient dwelling with a mountain view he is offering for sale.
If there is a lesson to be learned, I think Nick might be the student here.
Didn’t need to as it was on the binder and other paperwork before signing. One of the carriers they use is AMTrust/Republic Vanguard. Depending on whose rating system you use, and if you believe them, they are an “A” rated company. They are also a very large operation.
What point are you trying to make?
Unfortunately no comparison. InspectorPro was the obvious selection.
I’ve said it before that Inspectors really need to read their policies! You would be very surprised how many are excluding something as simple as residential irrigation systems (lawn sprinklers). Almost all exclude them which is directly in writing and I also questioned those I was possibly interested in using and they verified the exclusion. HOLY CRAP almost every home I do here has them and by the State laws I can not inspect them if not properly covered in their E&O policy! Makes me wonder how many Texas Inspectors are running illegally here?
And nearly 30 others.
Jim, are you ever going to edit the last sentence of your blog article at How To Recognize a “Soft” Home Inspection Report?
“In addition to the exclusion-laden free “warranty” is the recent promotion where some home inspectors offer to “buy back your house” if they miss a defect in their report. If you really … really … believe that your home inspector can afford to “buy back” every house that he inspects charging his $300-ish inspection fee, then go ahead and take comfort in his offer when deciding to buy a home. If, however, you are suspicious as to why he will NOT promise to pay to replace the broken water heater he failed to detect for $500 but is willing to “guarantee” to buy back the house for $300,000.00, instead … look carefully at the hundreds of exclusions that assure that no such transaction can ever take place.” - James H. Bushart
LOL
I’ll repeat it again for you:
No, I won’t. At the time that article was first written, you were promising a “no questions asked” guarantee to buy back any home under any circumstances. Since that time, your “guarantee” has grown a litany of additional exclusions and resulted in at least one home inspector being sued by a homeowner who did not qualify despite the promises made to her. I predicted that would happen the day you announced your program. After all these years, only my blog post remains unchanged.
I never said that the inspector didn’t have requirements. With regard to the case you mentioned: You can’t cherry pick (you have to register every home, otherwise we’ll be subject to adverse selection), you have to get a signed agreement before you do the inspection (not an uncommon requirement), and you can’t register the home AFTER the homeowner contacts us with an issue (that would be like expecting an insurance company to cover you if you buy a policy only after your house catches on fire). And we re-explained this all to the inspector after we bought another home back that he inspected.
But with regard to the consumer, I believe to this day that “no questions asked” describes the program accurately.
After buying 28 or 29 homes, let’s take another peek at that last sentence you wrote:
You made two points paraphrased/shortened as:
The Inspector has no control over what the underwriter chooses to do.
Please name one “large/recognized” underwriter that does? Also no matter what the insurance product (E&O, GL, Homeowner insurance, auto insurance, etc., etc.) is please name one “large/recognized” that allows the insured to direct them what is to be done that is outside of any action they are required to do by law or contract?
All underwriters except one shares your claim history with every other underwriter.
First please name the one “large/recognized” underwriter that does not do that? Next please explain what the concern is with them doing that? Please provide actual factual accounts where this has occurred and has negatively impacted the insured.
I certainly agree that I don’t care for sharing of any claims information but it is the nature of the beast and until it is stopped by relevant laws it will continue forever.
You know, I’m not even a stickler for a signed pre-inspection agreement on the Buy Back program. I’ve looked the other way on that at least twice.
Thanks for the softball pitches!
That is hilarious 
It is. LOL. God help me, I love these threads.
This thread has backfired for Nick. It has made Inspectorpro/Citadel and “He’s a great guy” Will Colton look honest, and Nick look like a snake oil salesman.
Truth does not need fluff and embellishments. This is full of them.
"So, he turned it over to his E&O insurance sales company. His E&O insurance sales company promptly denied the claim leaving the inspector high and dry. His poor clients, Matthew and Kaylee Lalumia (who have a toddler), tried to resolve their claim, but the inspector’s insurance sales company refused to help at all. They simply denied the claim and left the home inspector vulnerable to a forthcoming lawsuit without any money to cover his legal defense costs. We saved this young family from financial ruin and saved the home inspector’s career.
What part of that is fluff, in your opinion?