March 2005 TREC Inspectors Subcommittee Meeting

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



http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/T/TREC_031805_pg1.JPG ]


Page 2:


[ Image: http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/T/TREC_031805_pg2.JPG ]



Mike Boyett


Capital City Inspections


Austin, Tx


www.capcityinspections.com

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



Quote:
(1) a corporation must designate one of its officers
as its agent for purposes of this chapter; and
2) a limited liability company must designate one of
its managers as its agent for purposes of this chapter.


It would be nice to have a business attorney review that requirement for a legal view of its intention. Currently all Corps and LLC's have managers or board members but none are specifically called "Agents". Naturally one of the nice parts about Corps and LLC's is limited liability or at least one more piece of Kevlar between you and the angry clients silver bullet! The only reason I can see for that is to directly tie the HI to liability for the Corp or LLC actions???? Even if you have a multi-inspector firm each one is liable for themselves and the company for itself. What was the purpose of that?

As for "Pending Business, Item 10" how does a warranty fall under insurance unless money passes hands for the purpose of insuring and an insurance binder is issued? By that I mean if an HI wants to warrant their work, just as builders are required to by law, how does that become insurance??? Now someone selling an inspection insurance policy for an inspection that is understandable.

I have dealt with TDI and I will say that I am very well impressed with their operation. Very professional and helpful and those I dealt with are genuinely concerned even though the politicians tie their hands in many ways thus preventing them from being as effective as they can. It would be nice to see TDI chase down HI E&O companies gouging inspectors!!

I do like the thought of "New Business, Number 16". The current report format is much to "Black and White"!! As a result it does contribute to the "Deal Killer" image we sometimes get labeled with. I believe the comments need to be either changed or expanded as noted. Hopefully they will leave the remaining required check items alone or make them more general allowing us greater leeway in what we inspect. If they make them to encompassing and restrictive then who needs an education if you can just use a checklist.

As for the cross reference to codes I really would like to see them break down and just O.K. it. We inspect and make decisions based on good, sound building practices. That's exactly where the codes come from, good, sound building practices. Grant it we are not licensed code inspectors but maybe they should investigate a requirement of knowing and testing on even the basic codes.

Just my two cents worth but keep up the good work Michael!!

Manny (Emmanuel) Scanlan