Joe... What do you think? To be insured or not to be insured

Originally Posted By: jwatts1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Joe,


Its great that you are a resource to NACHI. I have a question for you… I am an inspector in California, there are no insurance requirements out here. I set up an LLC and I have 300k of insurance with Allens Insurance of E and O and general liability…


I hate spending 4k per year on insurance, plus another 1k for my LLC state tax... Do you think it is absolutely essential for all inspectors to have insurance, even though there are no state requirements? I do have about 300k of equity in my house, and have some assets so that's why I have insurance.... but I hate paying 4k per year for the coverage..
My business is part time and I make around 25k per year...

What is your view on this? Is an LLC enough to discourage attorneys from going after my personal assets or should I keep my insurance policy current and remain safe...??!?!?!

Lend me your thoughts.

Thanks! and I appreciate your time.
Justin Watts.
American Dream Home Inspection LLC


Originally Posted By: whandley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hey Justin;


Try Joe at: legal@nachi.org

Have a great weekend,

Hope your business is doing well....


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Justin -


The question is not whether to insure or not insure your errors and omissions liability exposure but rather whether to transfer this risk to an insurance company or shoulder the risk yourself. The risk/exposure is the same, only the method of handling it is different.

Sophisticated businesses engage in elaborate cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether or not to transfer risk or retain it. We do it ourselves on a much smaller scale. For instance, I never take the physical damage insurance on a rental car because it is preposterously expensive in relationship to the risk being transferred. In a rental car, your liability exposure for damage to the rental car is generally limited to the $500 deductible that the rental car company has on its physical damage insurance but the rental car company charges something like $15/day to eliminate this exposure. That translates into an annual premium of over $5,400 [$15 x 365] to insure a $500 exposure, an absurd tradeoff. Similarly, I carry a $1,000 deductible on my collision coverage because it saves me approximately $200 a year over a $500 deductible, an excellent tradeoff.

I look at insurance as a method of financing the inevitable losses that stem from being in business rather than as insurance. What I mean can be illustrated by auto insurance. If you drive long enough, you are eventually going to be involved in an automobile accident or accidents. Over, say, a thirty year period, you might pay an average of $3000/year for automobile insurance coverage or approximately $90,000. Investment returns on that might double or even triple the amount available to respond to claims. But one or two accidents in thirty years, could equal or exceed that amount. So the theory of insurance is that your exposure, even being careful, under this scenario is approximately $200,000 and a couple of claims totaling $200,000 would cause a major dislocation to your budget but a payment of $250/month to an insurance company is doable to eliminate that potential shock to your budget.

In a professional liability context, claims are even more likely because the consumer is looking to the professional to protect his interests. He knows nothing about houses and is seeking to protect himself from making what could be a very costly mistake. The only reason our industry exists is to manage the risks associated with the purchase of a house. Our members perform on the average 1.5 inspections a day, say 300 to 400 per year. That?s a lot of exposure and mistakes do happen and in our profession, those mistakes can be very costly.

When things go wrong in a house purchase, the purchaser has all sorts of folks to go after to try to rectify the situation: the seller, the listing agent, the selling agent, the broker, the purchaser?s agent, the purchaser?s broker and the home inspector. Even if the purchaser does not blame you, but, say, blames the listing agent, you can be certain that the lawyers defending other parties in the lawsuit are going to bring you into it. Similarly, if only you are sued, your lawyer will be sure to look to the other parties for contribution and indemnification.

The good news is that most professional liability lawsuits result in the vindication of the professional. Most, not all. And that is because professionals are by and large good at what they do and are generally not negligent. Generally. Again, mistakes do happen. So, in the vast majority of cases that a professional is likely to be involved in, no damages will be awarded. The problem is that it often results in a Pyrrhic victory. You win the case but your costs to defend yourself are enormous.

If you are not insured, you will have to hire your own lawyer to defend your interests and you will have virtually no control of costs. The more litigants - the seller, his broker, his listing agent, the buyer?s broker and agent - the costlier it will be. Each of those parties will be maneuvering to limit his own exposure by taking depositions and other kinds of discovery to shift the blame to someone else. Then the Court will get involved ordering various and sundry conferences that your lawyer will have to attend: scheduling conferences, settlement conferences, pre-trial conferences, hearings on motions and on and on. Eventually, it will become a question of whether you pay your lawyer or pay the plaintiff to go away. And maybe the plaintiff will be willing to go away but you still have the other parties who have filed cross-claims against you and each other. You have to make them go away, too. For a litigant, litigation is a major headache because it is seemingly never over. Even after verdict, it is not over. There are post-trial motions and oral arguments and possibly appeals. So, even if you win, you lose.

Then there are the suits that you lose because you were negligent and your negligence was the proximate cause of a very large loss. That?s when the real nightmare begins. And you will probably be ruined as a professional, if you are unable to respond to a legitimate claim. And, believe me, you are not going to want to be in the position of telling your client, "I've got great news. I'm going to give you all your money back."

So from someone who has been in the legal trenches, litigating all kinds of claims, representing both plaintiffs and defendants, and who knows first hand how preposterously expensive even minor litigation can be, I think that your professional liability exposure is one that you would want to transfer to an insurer. And, as a professional, you really owe it to your client to protect him from your inadvertent mistakes.

I would manage the premium costs by choosing higher deductibles because the premium savings justifies the additional exposure. Keep in mind that the deductible applies only to damages not to defense costs.

Finally, a word about the NACHI insurance program through the agency of Towers Perrin. I was involved in the development of this program for our membership. Towers Perrin did a truly wonderful job of securing this program and negotiating its generous discounts for our membership. In chapter meeting after chapter meeting at which I have spoken, members have, across the board, lavishly praised the program and have advised me that it is much less expensive that the competitive products on the market.

We spent a lot of time in securing this market for our members and it is very important that the membership support the program. There is strength in numbers and the more this program is embraced by our membership, the greater our leverage will be with Lexington Insurance Company on such issues as coverage and premium rates and claims issues.

The program is currently available in seventeen states and will be expanding to all fifty states on January 1, 2006.

I hope that answers your question. If not, give me a shout at legal@nachi.org

Joe


Originally Posted By: phinsperger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Wow Joe! That was a very good way of putting it. So much so I have added it to Good posts & Free on-line courses


In your example above you disscuss the risks for a full time inspector. We have many part time inspectors where they are simply not doing the same volume of inspection as the full time inspectors. Obviously their exposure is also less but since they tend to be less experienced inspectors would you not say that their risk per inspection is slightly higher and total risk per year is less than that of full time inspectors?

Is there, or will there be any provision with Lexington for part time inspectors who simply can not afford the same rates as full time inspectors?


--
.


Paul Hinsperger
Hinsperger Inspection Services
Chairman - NACHI Awards Committee
Place your Award Nominations
here !

Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
When things go wrong in a house purchase, the purchaser has all sorts of folks to go after to try to rectify the situation: the seller, the listing agent, the selling agent, the broker, the purchaser?s agent, the purchaser?s broker and the home inspector. Even if the purchaser does not blame you, but, say, blames the listing agent, you can be certain that the lawyers defending other parties in the lawsuit are going to bring you into it. Similarly, if only you are sued, your lawyer will be sure to look to the other parties for contribution and indemnification.


I can only tell you that when I was sued, no one but me and my insurance policy were the targets. One of the first things out of the plaintiffs mouth was, "you're insured, aren't you?" I don't know about American E&O but I can tell you the Canadian or at least Ontario insurance market for E&O and premiums, etceteras the insurance companies are their own worst enemies. The consesus of opinion up here is that insurance is a 50-50 draw, you can win or you can lose. It seems many have lost more than they have gained. Can't speak for the U.S.A market.

Cheers,


--
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca

Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I hear of too many horror stories where the insurance company is not our friend they have in too many cases settled instead of fighting.


Example my son was sued because of an abandon oil tank that was written in his report in two places to be drained and removed by qualified persons.


Three months after the purchaser moved in he had three buddies try and take the tank out with fuel oil still in it and dropped it.


Oil all over the floor.


The new owner sued both agents and the previous owner and my son for his negligence .


Settled out of court they all paid a share of the clean up.


He had to pay his deductible of $5,000:00 and his rates went up for three years.


This is one example of many where the insurance did not protect the Home Inspector.



Roy Cooke Sr.


http://Royshomeinspection.com

Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rwand1 wrote:
Joe opined....

Quote:
When things go wrong in a house purchase, the purchaser has all sorts of folks to go after to try to rectify the situation: the seller, the listing agent, the selling agent, the broker, the purchaser?s agent, the purchaser?s broker and the home inspector. Even if the purchaser does not blame you, but, say, blames the listing agent, you can be certain that the lawyers defending other parties in the lawsuit are going to bring you into it. Similarly, if only you are sued, your lawyer will be sure to look to the other parties for contribution and indemnification.


I can only tell you that when I was sued, no one but me and my insurance policy were the targets. One of the first things out of the plaintiffs mouth was, "you're insured, aren't you?" I don't know about American E&O but I can tell you the Canadian or at least Ontario insurance market for E&O and premiums, etceteras the insurance companies are their own worst enemies. The consesus of opinion up here is that insurance is a 50-50 draw, you can win or you can lose. It seems many have lost more than they have gained. Can't speak for the U.S.A market.

Cheers,


Ray -

You do not give enough information about this particular suit for anyone to draw any rational conclusions respecting the outcome of the case. Further, you seem to be implying that the plaintiff would not have gone forward with the claim had you not had insurance. I assure you that, as a businessman, you would be making a very foolish assumption.

I have been involved in many lawsuits on both the defense and prosecution side where there was no insurance to respond to either damages or defense costs.

About three years ago, I was asked to defend a couple who owned a boarding house in Philadelphia that had been set afire by one of their tenants who set a mattress on fire by careless smoking. Four souls perished in the fire.

Notwithstanding that there was no insurance and the couple had limited means to either a. defend the case or b. pay damages, two suits were filed on behalf of the decedents by two very well qualified law firms.

The potential damages were in the millions of dollars. Because of the high quality of the plaintiffs' lawyers and their cooperative spirit, I was able to effect a settlement that did not bankrupt my clients but which nevertheless caused a major diminution in their nest eggs and lifestyle. Because the settlement was a fraction of what the potential verdict would have been, the settlement needed court approval.

When we met with the settlement referee, Gordon Gerber, a doyen of the Philadelphia Plaintiff's Bar, I told him "Gordon, if I'm able to get this settlement approved, I'll only be one miracle behind Mother Katherine Drexel." Everyone laughed but knew it was true.

The plaintiffs' attorneys lost their shirts on the case because the contingent fees based upon the settlement did not even begin to approach the amount of time that they had in the case. Why did they accept the case? Because it was the right thing to do.

Not all lawyers are greedy money grubbers. It is a costly mistake to think that they are.

Joe


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rcooke wrote:
I hear of too many horror stories where the insurance company is not our friend they have in too many cases settled instead of fighting.
Example my son was sued because of an abandon oil tank that was written in his report in two places to be drained and removed by qualified persons.
Three months after the purchaser moved in he had three buddies try and take the tank out with fuel oil still in it and dropped it.
Oil all over the floor.
The new owner sued both agents and the previous owner and my son for his negligence .
Settled out of court they all paid a share of the clean up.
He had to pay his deductible of $5,000:00 and his rates went up for three years.
This is one example of many where the insurance did not protect the Home Inspector.


Roy -

I have a difficult time believing that story. The underlying facts do not make sense to my jaded Philadelphia lawyer's mind. For one thing, even if you son was negligent, which it definitely sounds like he was not, he was not the proximate cause of the damages. The knuckleheads who removed the oil tank and dropped it were. End of case. Verdict for Roy's son.

Insurance companies have an affirmative duty of good faith in defending claims where their insured is at risk of loss. For example, take the case where an insured has policy limits of $100,000 and the plaintiff offers to settle within those limits. If the insurance company does not accept that offer but elects to defend instead and, as a result of the insurance company's decision to defend the suit that it could have settled within the policy limits, the verdict exceeds those limits, the insurance company is liable for the shortfall.

The same would be true in a deductible context.

So your son's story simply does not ring true. If it is, in fact, true. He should hie himself to a good plaintiff's attorney and file a bad faith action against his insurance company.

Joe


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rwand1 wrote:


I don't know about American E&O but I can tell you the Canadian or at least Ontario insurance market for E&O and premiums, etceteras the insurance companies are their own worst enemies.


Ray -

Not while Roy Cooke is alive.

Joe


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



phinsperger wrote:
Wow Joe! That was a very good way of putting it. So much so I have added it to Good posts & Free on-line courses

In your example above you disscuss the risks for a full time inspector. We have many part time inspectors where they are simply not doing the same volume of inspection as the full time inspectors. Obviously their exposure is also less but since they tend to be less experienced inspectors would you not say that their risk per inspection is slightly higher and total risk per year is less than that of full time inspectors?

Is there, or will there be any provision with Lexington for part time inspectors who simply can not afford the same rates as full time inspectors?


Paul -

Thanks for the compliment. They say it doesn't hurt you, if you don't inhale.

Actually, I think that the part-time inspector presents a greater risk than the full time professional. I recently had this very conversation with an attorney friend of mine at a major philadelphia law firm. He defends professional liability suits and the 'part-time' lawyer represents a major headache to his insurance company clients. The only way to really become competent in a profession is to gain a lot of experience. There are no part-time neurosurgeons and, if there were, only a fool would engage one.

I appreciate the affordability issue for the beginning inspector. Perhaps a solution would be for NACHI chapters to sponsor mentoring programs where a part-time or beginning inspector could cut his teeth for a couple of years with a veteran inspector and be covered under the veteran's insurance policy until he has enough experience and client base to strike out on his own.

I know that when I first became a lawyer, I tried a lot of arbitration cases where the client had a complete right to a trial de novo [a do-over], if he was unsatisfied with the arbitration result. It was a great way to learn the ins and outs of trial work without exposing the client to a lot of risk.

Joe


Originally Posted By: jwatts1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Paul,


That was excellent advice. I appreciate your response to my question. And I can see where litigation against a home inspector can be a nightmare! The best Defense is having a good offense, and that’s where insurance comes in… You just have to have it for the layer of protection. Just a cost of doing business…


I appreciate your advice, and yes, I always prefer to advice from an attorney such as yourself, rather than another inspector. Since this is your area of expertise.

Thanks again!
Justin.


Originally Posted By: rcooke1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



In my case, the insurer settled for 5% responsibility because as they put it, "it was cheaper to pay out $40,000.00 plus rather than fight it and perhaps be held to pay out more. This case should never have involved me, as I put it to the purchaser, that he & I could not have spent 3 hours plus in that house if there had been an iol spill on or before the day of the inspection. I wrote it up as a 30 plus year old oil tank 1/2 filled and a 30 plus yr old oil furnace that wouldnt start, therefore, immediate further evaluation and likely replacement of both. The vendor had incapable people remove the tank and the furnace and spill more than 100 gallons therefore making it a toxic house. This lawsuit began at $870,000.00 and named everyone but the neighbours as defendants.


The way it is worded by our insurer up here is that one must inform the insurer immediately of anything that may become a lawsuit. When my last annoyance came in it was for $4,700.00 for a furnace and air conditioner that I all but condemned on the spot. Two years after possession they decided that I owed them for this new furnace and A/C. Doing according to my contract I informed the insurer and requested that it be handled by me and I would sign any waiver or release to hold them harmless. I fought and won, but it still counted as a possible lawsuit and therefore my insurance rates would have risen again. I dropped E&O and dont regret it. I feel that not having it makes me less of a target for unscrupulous greedy people to try to take what they dont deserve.
Roy D Cooke Jr.


Originally Posted By: mpasquinelli
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



“Why did they accept the case? Because it was the right thing to do. Not all lawyers are greedy money grubbers. It is a costly mistake to think that they are.”


Unfortunately, I have had experiences that make that statement far from the fact. The legal system is geared towards benefiting the lawyers far more than the plaintiff or defendant.

Martin


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



mpasquinelli wrote:
"Why did they accept the case? Because it was the right thing to do. Not all lawyers are greedy money grubbers. It is a costly mistake to think that they are."

Unfortunately, I have had experiences that make that statement far from the fact. The legal system is geared towards benefiting the lawyers far more than the plaintiff or defendant.

Martin


How so?


Originally Posted By: jwatts1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Here’s my view…


If you have assets, you probably should have insurance to protect them.

If you don't have assets, then who cares if you get sued... they can't take what you don't have... sure, you may have a judgement, but you could also declare your corporation or LLC as Bankrupt and then go and start up a new one...

I have a lot of equity in my home, I am afraid to lose it, so I am insured... Yes, I hate paying for insurance, but I figure, that's the money I would have to pay for an attorney to defend me if I was ever sued..

What is very troublesome regarding our legal system, is that even though you may not be at fault, YOU WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY TO DEFEND YOUR SELF... that's what is very defeating.

What is worse is the COST of Error and Omissions Insurance, it it was only 1k per year, that would be reasonable, but paying 4k per year is HIGH, especially if your business is part-time like mine, with 25k per year in profit....

Either way, you can screw yourself if you Do Not have insurance, or you can get screwed by paying the insurance company....for claims that may never happen! This is the only cost of my business I hate giving up each year.

Justin.


Originally Posted By: jwatts1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



At least he is giving us free advice…


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jwatts1 wrote:
At least he is giving us free advice......


Great!
I love his help its gets us all thinking and voicing our thoughts .
Thanks to Joe and Nick for this it again shows how NACHI helps the Industry.

No other Association tries to help all like NACHI does.

Be Happy Join NACHI . I did and it really works well


--
Roy Cooke Sr.

http://Royshomeinspection.com

Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rcooke1 wrote:
In my case, the insurer settled for 5% responsibility because as they put it, "it was cheaper to pay out $40,000.00 plus rather than fight it and perhaps be held to pay out more. This case should never have involved me, as I put it to the purchaser, that he & I could not have spent 3 hours plus in that house if there had been an iol spill on or before the day of the inspection. I wrote it up as a 30 plus year old oil tank 1/2 filled and a 30 plus yr old oil furnace that wouldnt start, therefore, immediate further evaluation and likely replacement of both. The vendor had incapable people remove the tank and the furnace and spill more than 100 gallons therefore making it a toxic house. This lawsuit began at $870,000.00 and named everyone but the neighbours as defendants.

The way it is worded by our insurer up here is that one must inform the insurer immediately of anything that may become a lawsuit. When my last annoyance came in it was for $4,700.00 for a furnace and air conditioner that I all but condemned on the spot. Two years after possession they decided that I owed them for this new furnace and A/C. Doing according to my contract I informed the insurer and requested that it be handled by me and I would sign any waiver or release to hold them harmless. I fought and won, but it still counted as a possible lawsuit and therefore my insurance rates would have risen again. I dropped E&O and dont regret it. I feel that not having it makes me less of a target for unscrupulous greedy people to try to take what they dont deserve.
Roy D Cooke Jr.


Roy -

So, you avoided a potential $800,000 liability [$40,000/.05] plus legal fees for a payment of $5,000.00. Yeah, you really got screwed! [BTW, I thought it was your son who was involved in that case.] I really do not think that you have a legitimate beef in that one.

True, you might have won. On the other hand you might have been found 1% responsible. You would be a joint tortfeasor with the other defendants. That would have entitled the plaintiff to collect the entire judgment from you. You would then have to sue your fellow joint tortfeasors for their contribution.

Do you think you would have fared better by yourself? Believe me, your defense costs in an $800,000 dollar case would have dwarfed the $40,000 that you settled for.

On your second scenario, I don't understand why you would report a claim that you intended to handle yourself. Had you not reported it, you would have been denied coverage but so what? You agreed to hold the insurer harmless anyway. That suit should not have been held against you. If it was, you have a legitimate beef.

Again, this is why I would like to see the membership support the NACHI Towers Perrin program. I would have enormous leverage to engage the insurer on behalf of the NACHI member.

Joe


Originally Posted By: rcooke1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe? I am Roy D Cooke Jr. I am the one who was named. Be very careful, there are two of us. My whole point was that an oil spill that occurred 3 weeks after the inspection should not have brought me into the defendant category. While I do not ague with you that my $5,000.00 deductible and inflated premiums for the next 3 years were far less than it would have cost me to defend myself without insurance, my impression is that if I had no insurance at that time, I likely would not have been named as co-defendant. I appreciate your insight and different way of interpreting so please don’t take anything I say as criticism of you, or your profession. I am on the insurance committee for OAHI and I see some of the lawsuits that we get stung for, many are flagrantly uncalled for, and in my opinion are just invited by the fact that we had to carry E&O mandatory.


Roy D Cooke Jr.
Burlington, On


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rcooke1 wrote:
Joe? I am Roy D Cooke Jr. I am the one who was named. Be very careful, there are two of us. My whole point was that an oil spill that occurred 3 weeks after the inspection should not have brought me into the defendant category. While I do not ague with you that my $5,000.00 deductible and inflated premiums for the next 3 years were far less than it would have cost me to defend myself without insurance, my impression is that if I had no insurance at that time, I likely would not have been named as co-defendant. I appreciate your insight and different way of interpreting so please don't take anything I say as criticism of you, or your profession. I am on the insurance committee for OAHI and I see some of the lawsuits that we get stung for, many are flagrantly uncalled for, and in my opinion are just invited by the fact that we had to carry E&O mandatory.

Roy D Cooke Jr.
Burlington, On


Roy, Jr. -

Sorry for the confusion. That is why I named my sons, Se?n and Tadhg! If you did not have insurance, I agree, possibly you would not have been named as a co-defendant. By the plaintiff.

You absolutely would have been brought into the case by other defendants and would have gotten out for a token contribution but not before you spent thousands deflecting the other defendants' maneuvers. My guess is that your attorney would have succeeded in getting you out for say, $5,000 - less than 1% of the actual settlement and a great job by your attorney, by the way.

My entire point - and I do appreciate your taking it in the manner that it is offered - is that you definitely want to have a third-party between you and your client when things go bump in the night.

Going bare does not make you uninsured, it makes you self-insured. If you can't handle a shock loss, you need to have insurance.

Best.

Joe