InterNACHI filing a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #1
(Stephen W. Stanczyk, WA License #221) #2

Page 2, 1. They left out “Certified”.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #3

Thanks, fixed. We will be filing the lawsuit on Wednesday of next week.

(Jerry Poulin) #4

Please correct spelling - it’s KRPAC - there is no second ‘c’ (paragraphs 3, 9,10, 11.).
Also I think KY SB 66 (March 2013) eliminated requirements for the E&O insurance; I can’t find any legislation that reinstates it.

Good Luck with the lawsuit.
(interested Kentucky observer)

(Steve Taylor, CMI) #5

Please keep us informed as the suit progresses through the “system”.

(D. Michael Green, HI-2003) #6

That is the problem…the statute only requires $500,000 of General Liability which is excessive and absurd but the most recent application (received in April 2015) still requires $500,000 E&O and a $10,000 License and Permit Bond. Also because the application was approved with that requirement by reference by the Legislative Research Commission in the regulations any changes must also be submitted and approved before the document can be used. CFHS is ignoring this and proceeding with implementation on July 1st anyway. Attempts to contact them concerning this have gone unanswered. This law is a joke! As a founding member of the Board of Home Inspectors and former Chairman of that Board I can tell you they have violated just about every legal requirement for the promulgation of regulations.

I want to take time to thank Nick and InterNACHI for joining in this fight. Without InterNACHI there was a strong chance that we would be unsuccessful on a monetary basis alone. But with InterNACHI we have a much stronger case and better chance of success. This is why I have steadfastly maintained my membership and allegiance to InterNACHI when many tried to convince me otherwise. I don’t see NAHI or ASHI stepping up to help anywhere…Only InterNACHI goes to bat for its members by putting it’s money where it’s mouth is! And they always have! Thanks again Nick!

(Jerry Poulin) #7

Thanks for your explanation… that makes some of the wording in the lawsuit clearer to me now.

I’ve had problems getting any information from CFHS and the Radon Program also.
Best Regards.

(Frank Rotte, , CPI, San Diego Home Inspector) #8

(Apollo David Zimmerman) #9

Can you summarize what this says and what it means to us as InterNACHI members?

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #10

Post #5.

(John McKenna, CMI) #11

This is what InterNACHI does. The members need comes first.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #12

Filed: http://www.nachi.org/documents2012/InterNACHI%20et.%20al.%20vs.%20Com.%20of%20Kentucky%20et%20al.pdf

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #13

We made a motion for a temporary injunction: http://www.nachi.org/documents2012/temporary-injunction-internachi-vs-kentuck.pdf

Members: Please attend if you can.

(Leonard Inkster, CMI) #14

Good luck on this Nick. Rooting for everyone. Government created monopolies are still monopolies and the government should not have to be reminded at taxpayers expense of this.

There is a fine line between regulation for the public benefit and regulation in return for votes. Governments have got to learn to realise there is a flip side to the latter that is often counter productive.

(Jerry Poulin) #15

Nick, Thank you for your support on this action. I primarily enrolled for education, but I am will continue with this organization due to its support of its members.

I will be at the Courthouse on Wednesday to support!

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #16

Awesome.

(Gary Farnsworth, CMI) #17

We got the HI laws in Kansas out of play.

HI laws are only basic. They set a minimum. That is what the REA special interests want; basic inspections, so homes will sell, and basic-say-nothing reports will be the norm as to not alarm home buyers. REA’s set the insurance requirements high, so liability can be moved from the REA’s to the inspectors. REA’s will benefit from lower insurance rates, because the HI’s will then carry the high insurance. There are far more complaints about REA’s in court cases than HI complaints. In some cases, thousands of times more.

This is all about the REA’s; not the consumers. It is this way with any HI law. Kansas saw this, and got the laws rescinded.

Being a member or InterNACHI in good standing, and registering your company with the state, giving them your information about where you live, should be enough. It seems it is not, and laws are only pushed into play for the personal benefit of “campaign contributions” from REA lobbyist associations to politicians who vote laws.

This is a corrupt system, that is getting out of hand. Another subject for another time.

(D. Michael Green, HI-2003) #18

Nick asked me to post an update on our lawsuit against the State of Kentucky over the new Radon Contractor law. We had a hearing on Wednesday morning and the Judge granted a restraining order against the enforcement of the new regulations against any of the plaintiff’s in the case. The order does not protect non-participants so thanks to InterNACHI’s participation this order should cover all members of InterNACHI performing radon tests in Kentucky. ASHI and NAHI members…sorry about your luck!The Secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services (a defendant in the suit) has assured our attorney that the issues will be fixed so we are working to put together a list of demands in the situation. Further updates will be made as things progress. Thanks again to Nick and InterNACHI for all the help!

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #19

Awesome. We won round one.

(Gary Farnsworth, CMI) #20

Here in Kansas, radon laws have been in place for 3 years now. There are many problems with the system.

You can test for radon AND do the mitigation IF radon is found by the COMPANY doing the test. Most use electronic equipment exclusively, program them to get high results, and get the revenue from the mitigation, needed or not.

I was involved last year with my new home that I purchased with one such situation. I complained, wrote a report to the state, and no enforcement or penalty was made to the radon test company that the owner, at the time, hired. Testing was artificially high after mitigation was installed. I tested it myself, and results came in under 1.0. IMO, mitigation was not needed in the first place.

Many testing companies are “rebating” the test fee if the buyer/owner has the company do mitigation.

Many RELO companies are giving away free test kits AFTER CLOSING to home buyers, so the buyer can do his own test, send in the kit, and IF radon is found, mitigation is free.

Free is always better. Yeah, right.