You have an attorney on staff. Good for you.
The rest of us have employ one as needed.
And you asking us to Trust you and YOUR attorney is laughable in the extreme.
Good luck in this new year. I think you are going to need it badly.
Questions for Nathan:
What’s the point of this thread?
Why do you persist?
Joe has answered your questions.
What is special about 6:00 P.M. today?
:shock:
These threads continue because of one person.
**
YOU**
It’s the only avenue left where he can garner attention. His fifteen minutes are up.
Nathan’s questions have been (repeatedly) addressed to the best of my ability.
As to the over-arching question of applicability of regulations and law with respect to alternate dispute resolution services, I have invited Nathan and anyone else who is dissatisfied with my explanation/answers/response to PLEASE contact their State’s AG office or the court system.
As to Nathan not being “sold” on arbitration, perhaps someone should ask him why he was interested in offering IAS through his company a few months back. It was I who politely stated that I was not interested.
I see.
Apparently the young man has not gotten over the rejection. 
Bumpity-Bump! O:)
**Bumpity-Bump-Bump!!! **O:)
I think the most definitive … and most relevant … thing that Joe can say about his arbitration service, he already said.
When Thornberry, a dishonest and unethical lead broker, attempted to get Joe to agree to allow him to offer Joe’s service along with Thornberry’s other crooked scams … Joe said “no”.
How much more definitive can he get?
Arbitration as a dispute resolution is pointless and stupid. OK…Not saying JOE is stupid or useless, but the service is, as ARBITRATION. Now as an attempt for dispute resolution I can see a viable avenue here.
From what I read an arbitrator must be approved by both parties when working outside the court room. So which homeowner will say…Sure lets use your guy, he seems fair?
Now there are two types of arbitration, as far as I know (I am no legal scholar), but there is binding and non binding. One means whatever the arbitrator concludes, that is the answer. Non binding means you don’t have to agree on anything the arbitrator says.
But lets take it even one step further, if you go with a binding arbitration, I think the courts get involved when that happens in order to enforce it, so they do you need a LEGAL arbitration system or not?
I think Joe offers more of a dispute resolution and not an arbitration service…but that’s just my opinion and I can see where that could be beneficial. Who doesn’t want someone trying to help them out, when they are in a Jam.
I think that is the point he really isn’t offering ARBITRATION services, but more of a dispute resolution service…
Maybe I am reading all this wrong…but I do think a Dispute resolution service is a great idea, so much so, that I am presently I get it for FREE…
NAthan can twist things in a hundred directions in an effort to smear anything he wants.
It fails to alter some basic facts.
- Some carriers will not officially recognize any ADRS
- There are no required qualifications
- Anyone can claim to be a mediator or arbitrator
- Virtually anyone may enter the field
- No current requirements exist on a state by state level regarding private ADRS
- One need not be licensed to practice law to be a mediator or arbitrator in private arbitration
Beyond that, I have explained things fairly well to Mr. Thornberry. As to his “fishing for information” line of BS… it’s just that.
The reason I declined Nathan’s offer has nothing to do with Nathan, per se… but delves into reasons some may ultimately have for disqualification of a neutral or ADRS service. Se steer clear of any potential conflicts of interest, and in fact, try to stay at arm’s length for all of it. There is a reason we do so. Nathan can figure it out later.
Nathan’s characterization of IAS is his opinion, not necessarily factual. He is entitled to that opinion. If he plans on endorsing a competing ADRS, that is fine. if he plans to launch his own, that is also fine.
As to qualifications of neutrals, and the services we offer, they are actually quite good. We only arbitrate cases involving inspectors. Our neutrals include attorneys, paralegals, contract specialists, contractors, and very experienced inspectors.
The price of the service is quite competitive. In fact, it is very low-cost.
It is what it is.
Still does not address what Nathan is so afraid of, and why he felt the need to start this thread in an effort to divert attention from another which had spiraled away from his spin-machine.
I welcome the questions, however. It only proves that some vendors and members take the high road, while others slither like snakes in the grass. If also proves that some vendor/members have this association and its members at heart, while some others view everything as a means to an end.
Coming to you live from Carmel, Indiana
Expect nothing less…
Actually Russel, you are kind of correct… to a point.
Some believe any alternate dispute resolution to be stupid. There is no harm in that, and I actually respect that opinion, though I do not necessarily agree with it.
The way the service was crafted revolved around low cost, non-binding arbitration. Our PIAs are constantly under attach, primarily for nbing unilateral and completely one-sided. If they were enforceable to a “T”, no one would ever win a lawsuit against an inspector.
That being said, our service is designed to be low cost. The Internet is the most cost effective manner in which to communicate between the parties in a structured fashion. It is legal, and it works pretty well.
The second piece is the ability for the losing party to be able to go to court if they are not satisfied by the outcome. These two items are key points in the arbitration clause being upheld time and time again. Further, the courts do not actually get involved, in that they only rule on the applicability and enforceability of the arbitration clause. Since the costs are not onerous to the plaintiff to bring an action, and the outcome still allows the case to proceed in court, the judges have no problems with the concept and service.
As to the binding parts, the process is still considered private. Both parties would need to agree, in writing, to accept binding arbitration. Further, they both need to agree, in advance, to what is being arbitrated. In this instance, both parties go into things with their eyes wide open. The result can be filed in any court. The court is not involved, except when it comes to enforcing the arbitrator’s decision, which in this specific instance is legally binding.
Many inspectors do not believe in arbitration, and that’s cool. Many inspectors believe as you do to pay to make a small claim go away, and pay for E&O for the rest. This is good strategy, if one can afford it.
But for others, this may not be the philosophy or the case. We are fine either way. We help lots of inspectors, including analyzing claims and writing letters for them. We assist law firms with similar analysis and strategy as to whether the case is bogus or has merit.
Like I said, if the service works for you, that’s cool. And if its not for you, it’s also cool.
If one believes it is operating outside the law, by all means contact your state AG office.
Nathan,
Read into this whatever you wish, but the items I have stated are correct.
Staying at arm’s length is always a good thing. Think of scenarios where one could allege a conflict of interest. You’re smart…
Declining your interest has zero to do with you or whether I believe your services have merit. Similar to a marketer we once retained trying to get us tied in with an insurance broker. They wanted to know how we vetted those who wanted to subscribe. They could not understand that there is no vetting process, as we indemnify no one; we simply provide a service. Things got a but ugly when I declined his offer of compensation for notifying subscribers of his product offerings. He failed to see a potential claimed link between a revenue stream and the perception of protecting clients that purchase his products.
Anyway, no offense to your questions.
As to a question Russell may have relative to whether we are a dispute resolution company or arbitrators, and whether the courts get involved, here is a letter of recommendation from a current subscriber to the service: