Here are my personal notes from today’s TREC Inspectors Committee meeting. My 3rd comment in Section 10 is kind of interesting.
What are your thoughts on mandatory E&O coverage for inspectors? I am new to the industry and have been pricing E&O; needless to say, it is very expensive for an inspector with less than a year of HI experience. I’m sure I’m not the only one out there that has to get some inspections ($) under my belt before I can afford E&O, and pray that I don’t find myself in court before I can afford coverage…
Billy, it’s the classic affordability issue we all face. My only concern is that TREC might someday require all Texas HI’s to carry E&O. I feel that it should be a business decision of each HI to decide whether or not to carry E&O. If one were to decide to carry it I feel the Towers Perrin/AIG plans thru NACHI are certainly worth looking into. Also, do a Search here on the bulletin board for E&O posts and you will get a broad opinion.
Out of curiosity, do a majority of Texas HIs carry E&O to your knowledge? I spoke with a seasoned HI here in Houston a while back and he said he would not carry it for the simple fact that he felt it placed a target on his back for lawsuits. Makes a little bit of sense; I would assume that a lawyer would be more apt to pursue a case against someone who carries E&O since he is more likely to be able to secure monetary damages for his client (meaning big dollars, not like garnishing my measly wages)…
Billy, I’m not sure, but I suspect only 25% or so carry E&O.
Thanks for your work and the update! We do greatly appreciate that!!
Yes that was an interesting note in item 10. That is what NACHI needs to continue doing, step up to the plate and lead the way.
I would be iterested in knowing what Ms. Ahmad was opposed to in the new SOP?
A couple of thoughts. One, I would have guessed that the NTNACHI chapter would be the one that would have volunteered to draft a “NACHI” Commentary relevant to the proposed SOP since it is the only organized Texas chapter at this time to my knowledge. John didn’t specifically say that and there was not an opportune time to ask for clarification. So, he may have some information from another source (?? ) for this so-called NACHI assistance. Maybe someone at the NTNACHI chapter can answer that.
Second, the concern voiced by Ms. Ahmad (sp?) was brief and something to the effect that the San Antonio “Homeowners for Better Building” wanted to voice their opposition to the proposed SOP because it ‘was not in the best interest of the consumer’ and, in effect, relaxed the standards and reduced the quality of a home inspection. She and a companion quickly exited after that statement and did not stay for the meeting. Regarding her statement, nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. That’s not to say the proposed SOP doesn’t need further work, most everyone including the committee members agree on that. Of the 8 members voting on the proposals today, 6 (the same 6) always voted for the proposals and 2 (the same 2) voted against. The chairman did not need to vote since there were no ties.
Thanks for posting your notes, they are very helpful.
Thanks for the info on Ms. Ahmad. As John Cahill has said, and I wholeheartedly agree, an SOP can’t ensure quality. No matter what happens with the new SOP there is always someone who won’t be pleased!
Not sure what NACHI NT has planned. The last meeting they did have John Cahill speak and did announce they have sent a support letter for the new SOP. They did not mention, to my recollection (I’m getting old don’t you know ), anything about further specific work on or with it. We shall see.
I attended a portion of today’s TREC meeting. This was a full TREC committee meeting not just the TREC Inspectors Committee. The agenda is attached and I attended mainly section 12 & 13. John Cahill and Russell Strahan, both members of the Inspectors Committee, spoke on behalf of the Inspectors Committee and supported the new proposed SOP’s. Larry Foster (spoke before I arrived?), Mark Eberwine and Fred Wilcox spoke against the proposed SOP. In general, the opposition could not or did not explain specifics as to their opposition other than they did not think the proposed SOP was in the best interest if the consumer and that Safety was being left out of the proposed SOP. Mr. Cahill pointed out, emphatically I might add, that the opposition has been asked numerous times for specifics and suggestions for improvement yet none have been provided. The TREC committee passed a motion to send the proposed SOP and accompanying proposals (new reporting form, etc) back to the Inspectors Committee for the 3rd time for further public comment and review. The TREC chairman implored all involved to reach a consensus and bring the proposal back again to TREC. Mr. Cahill was resolved to the fact that the proposed SOP will be back in the hands of the Inspectors Committee for more work.
Thanks for the update Michael.
“Because I just don’t like it.” shouldn’t be a valid argument without specifics but it apparently is. Sigh…