HI licensing with proper and continuing training as a requirement for performing Wind Mit inspections is good for consumers, the insurance industry and the State of Florida. Furthermore, other licensed entities, such as Engineers, Architects, Contractors should also be permitted to perform these inspections as long as the proper Wind Mit training has been completed and recorded under DPBR of Florida.
No one should be allowed to conduct an inspection without necessary training which of course should be tied integrally to the new proposed OIR inspection form.
Whether or not, qualified person decide to engage the market as a collective team of professionals is and should be subordinated to completing the necessary Wind Mit training for all potential signers who are properly licensed.
Finally, if anyone here wants to participate in bettering the OIR form or NACHI training as it relates to a performing a quality Wind Mit inspection then I might suggest that all would benefit more from productive discussion regarding application as this apparent law moves onto the books of Florida.
There most certainly is a need for some type of training on how to properly fill out an OIR form.
Example: if a single wrap does not wrap over the top of the truss but meets all the other criteria what is the proper selection on the form? Those of us who have had wind mitigation specific training know the answer is a “clip” but I have seen other forms filled out as “single wraps” and “toe nails” for this exact scenerio.
The State needs to address how to properly fill out the form based on specific scenerios that play out in the field. Until this is done they will contiue to see a high rate of error on the forms no matter what version in used.
If the clip was intended to be a strap and it was improperly installed in the tie beam even by 5/8" or less it is a hinge. But the form lacks that catagory. Worse yet when we fill out the new form to indicate that the residence was constructed to a particular code year are we then certifying that it is compliant to that code? I can tell you if you go back to 1997 there was never a time when 7/16" anything met the code for 24" O.C. roof sheathing thickness unless it was solid blocked. Now it fails to meet code if less than 19/32" unless the building is in a wind zone under 100 MPH. I could go on. This is a mess and it’s going to hurt a lot of people.
·Concrete and clay tile roof coverings do not meet the minimum requirements of the 2001 Florida Building Code or the1994 South Florida Building Code and do not receive the code compliant roof covering discount.
I complained and they said:
[FONT=Calibri]Please read question 2 on the newly revised 4 page form. It states to receive roof covering meeting the compliance code, the roof covering must meet the 01 FBC or the SFBC and then meet one of the many listed roofing requirements. Those roofing requirements are for shingle and metal roof requirements only.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]What they said is inaccurate the form says or not and. Just another problem in a long list.
Call. [FONT=Calibri]Call. [FONT=Calibri]Call.[FONT=Calibri]Call. [FONT=Calibri]Call
[FONT=Gulim]Otis Black at 863-318-4185. He is the team leader for the state farm Mitigation Team. do not tell him I gave out this number as I am awaiting information that I will share with all onec and if i get it.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]Call everyone the OIR. The State Insurance agency. Any Underwriters you know.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]If we do not call Everybody all the time they will not know.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]State farm has not even trained their people on the form yet and are unaware of most of the problems.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Fact is that many concrete tile roofs met the 2001 code prior to it’s inception. Monier made sure of that as they changed theyr’e install instructions to meet the 1994 Dade county requirements as soon as they came out.
Every training I have ever taken regarding Wind Mitigation inspections state that if the roof was permited on or after 2-28-2002 they are in compliance with the 01 FBC.
I would throw it back in State Farm’s court and tell them they need to explain to the homeowner why that credit is not being extended. If State Farm keeps pushing the envelope most of their customers will walk and find another insurance provider.
Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was State Farm’s intentions all along.