Sorry I’m late getting to you for your consideration, but been busy and just read your post for suggestions.
Probably the number one thing that comes to my mind that needs some sort of attention is in the area of wind mitigation re-inspections. Right now it seems whoever had the last inspection rules until the next inspection. Okay, lets say a homeowner (the insured) commissions a wind/mit inspection and they qualify for roof to wall connection related wind/mit discounts and they get them until the insurer has a win/mit inspection performed and that inspector says they don’t qualify for the R/W connection discount and the insurer immediately terminates the R/W connection discount. However, what you actually have is two wind mitigation reports that have differing opinions as to if the R/W connections meet the requirements as one of the qualifying R/W options or not. Since both reports were accepted by the insurer, I assume both reports were completed by qualified inspectors. In other words we have reports with differing opinions but in reality we have no idea which is correct.
In auto insurance when and a car is a total loss there is a procedure to follow when there is a different of opinion as to the value of that car. I suggest that something similar could be used in wind mitigation. FOR EXAMPLE:
When an insurer chooses to perform and pay for a wind mitigation re-inspection and that re-inspection shows differences from the original inspection that was commissioned by the insured and those differences would cause the loss of discounts it should trigger a process such as:
The insurer should notify the insured of the re-inspection results and their right to request a reconciling process within 30-60 days of notification.
- The two wind mitigation inspectors whom performed the inspections get together either by telephone or at the home or possibly both to determine why there are differences between the reports and determine the correct answer. The insurer pays the cost of its inspector and the insured pays the cost of their inspector.
- Should the two inspectors not be able to come to an agreement as to the correct answer, then together they should agree on and select a third inspector to re-inspect the property. The inspection results should be binding. The insurer and insured share the cost of the thind inspection equally. The third inspector should be one of the licensed professionals listed in the current statutes.
While the above is not perfect it’s a start and better than what’s in place now.
The second suggestion also has to do with re-inspections:
The statue says re-inspection should be conducted by independent inspectors when the insurer delays processing discounts to confirm the inspection results, I believe that should hold true for all re-inspections conducted or commissioned by an insurer. The insurer should not interpret, dictate or have influence on the procedures, specifications used by the inspectors performing the inspection. Re-inspections should only be performed by one of the current licensed professionals listed in the current statute.
Just a couple of suggestions