As you may know, the Ministry of Consumer Services is consulting on home inspector qualifications. The ministry has assembled an expert panel and hired SEG Management Consultants Inc. to facilitate meetings and draft the panel’s report of findings and recommendations to submit to the government . The ministry will share the expert panel’s report for public comment and will email survey respondents a copy of the report for review and comment.
To support the work of the expert panel, SEG Management Consultants Inc. has been contracted to collect and study data on the home inspection industry. The purpose is to assemble better information and profile of home inspectors and the home inspection industry in Ontario.
The following survey is being sent to a list of home inspectors that was complied with assistance of industry associations and business in Ontario. The survey is intended for all full-time, part-time, and dormant inspectors.
Please complete the survey by November 4, 2013. We strongly encourage you to complete the survey. The results of this survey will provide important information about the industry and will assist the expert panel and government to develop an approach to home inspector qualifications that meets the needs of both consumers and the industry.
All participants of this survey will receive a report on the home inspection industry. Only aggregate, non-identifying information will be included in the report.
I notice a touch of cynicism in your post there Stuart. Can’t for the life of me think why. :sarcasm: ( <— That’s the code for a sarcastic smiley, just wanted to see how it came out )
I suggested to the panel that maybe the Government would make more money out of regulating Roofers, Painters, Home Renovators and people who hide behind the “General Contractor” title.
Then you change the rules from “Caveat Emptor” to “Caveat Venditor” for the home sale process.
The effect of these changes would be to put the onus, and therefore the liability back on the people who’s poor practices cause the early demise of many of the homes we get to inspect.
The downside of this of course is less homes would be sold because the truth about them would be known.
More Realtors, Roofers, Painters, Home Renovators and people who hide behind the “General Contractor” title ( Mr. Woods favourite person included ) would go out of business. DIY home owners would be held responsible for their shoddy work, causing home buyers to sue home sellers. This would in turn damage the sales of companies like Lowes, Home Depot and Home Hardware, and Inspections would no longer be necessary.
As the Ontario Economy is 80% driven by consumerism, (a.k.a. Poor people spending their hard earned cash making rich people richer) my suggestions probably won’t fly.
Looks like the new Ontario regulations could be insisting on E&O insurance .
.Now as I understand my insurance ends when I do not renew .
So if I am an inspector for only one year and quit ,I no longer have insurance so if some time after the one year, I get sued and have no coverage .
( I know of no other insurance that works this way ) .
I think this should be drawn to the new group who are writing up the rules and advise them of this (no E&O coverage ) .
Just possible this might slow down their thinking and they might be able to bring pressure on the insurance companies to cover all claims .
I see no reason why a person who is only in business for one year must pay insurance for many more years .
I do not think it works that way on my Car insurance .If I die and my insurance runs out. I do believe future claims from a previous accident are still covered .
[FONT=Calibri] [/FONT]
Any Thoughts please … Roy -
[FONT=Calibri]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]I have added Communications’ below with another homie for all to see[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/FONT]
They sell “tail-end” coverage for those who retire from the biz. I think you can get 2 year coverage, costs less than regular coverage when you are doing inspections.
They do this because most if not all E&O policies are “claims made”, in other words, have to have coverage when claim is made.
To my knowledge, no one offers “occurrence made” E&O policies to inspectors.
Yes but if a person was not able to make a living how can they purchase more insurance .
Leave the business no money no coverage how will the government handle this .
Licensing does not protect the consumer.
Still have to sue the home inspector after he’s fined/disciplined by the licensing board.
Perhaps the licensing board will cover/fund uninsured inspectors with the $1,000/yr they get in fees from each inspector?
Last Updated: November 26 2013
Article by A. Irvin Schein](http://www.mondaq.com/content/author.asp?article_id=277584&author_id=878468)
In the recent case of [FONT=Arial]Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. All Spec Home Inspections and Mario Lucciola,[/FONT]
the Court considered the availability of insurance coverage to a home inspector who missed a critical electrical problem
on a home inspection resulting in a contractor’s death.
At the very end of the decision, the Judge made reference to the “cruel world of claims-made-and-reported policies of insurance”.
While colourful language of this nature is not unusual for the particular Judge in this case, it is not language that one sees very often.
Nevertheless, the facts of this case show how appropriate they are.
Mr. Lucciola, a self-employed home inspector, conducted an inspection of a property in St. Catharines in July 2010.
At the time, Mr. Lucciola had professional liability insurance on the basis of a one-year term renewed annually through to 2011.
Mr. Lucciola produced a report and photographs, making no reference whatsoever to any electrical problems.
On August 16, 2010, a contractor was doing work in the attic of the property.
He came into contact with an exposed energized bare copper wire. He was electrocuted and he died.
Three days later, on August 19, 2010, Mr. Lucciola signed an application for professional liability insurance as he had done every year since 2006.
His insurance application required him to indicate whether or not any claim had been made against him in the last five years,
and whether or not he was aware of any situation or circumstance which may result in a claim in the future.
Mr. Lucciola answered “no” to both questions.
The policy was then issued for a further period of one year.
Several days later, Mr. Lucciola was interviewed by an investigator for the Ministry of Labour,
at which time he was asked whether or not he had noticed the wire in the attic.
He indicated first that he had not noticed it and subsequently that he had but that he had tested it with an electrical tester and received no response from it.
For that reason, he had not made any note of it in his report.
About a year later, the Ministry of Labour conducted an inquest.
Subsequently, Mr. Lucciola signed yet another application for insurance.
It contained the same questions and he answered them in the same way.
Accordingly, a policy was issued for a further one year.
All of these policies contained language to the effect that if the insurer subsequently became aware that if any of these questions had been answered incorrectly,
there would be no coverage for any claim or action emanating from a fact or circumstance that the applicant failed to mention in his application.
A lawsuit was subsequently brought against Mr. Lucciola.
He notified his insurer of the claim.
The insurer brought this application for an order that it had no obligation to provide insurance coverage.
The Court had little difficulty concluding that Mr. Lucciola should have known of the potential claim against him when he made his application for the insurance policy that was in effect at the time that he was sued, and should have answered “yes” to that question on his application.
As a result, the Court ruled that the insurer was entitled to deny coverage.
The interesting point in this case has to do with the type of insurance policy that was in place.
Mr. Lucciola’s policy was a “claims-made-and-reported” insurance policy, rather than an occurrence policy.
These are very different.
In a claims-made-and-reported policy, it is the transmittal to the insurer of notice of the claim that invokes coverage.
In an occurrence policy, coverage goes into effect when the incident upon which the claim is based actually takes place.
In this case, the incident (the contractor’s death) took place in August 2010.
The policy in place at that time had been applied for by Mr. Lucciola in 2009.
In 2009, when he answered “no” to the questions as to whether or not he was aware of a possible claim, he was being entirely accurate.
Had his policy been an occurrence policy, the insurer would have had to provide coverage.
In this case, however, the policy in place when coverage was invoked was the policy in effect at the time that Mr. Lucciola notified his insurer of the claim.
In applying for that policy, Mr. Lucciola had answered “no” to questions that should have been answered “yes”.
For that reason alone, Mr. Lucciola was disentitled to coverage.
This is obviously a critical distinction.
If you have professional liability insurance coverage, and you are not aware of the type of policy that protects you,
this case is a good lesson on the importance of finding that out and keeping it in mind.
Originally published at www.irvinschein.com](http://www.mondaq.com/redirection.asp?article_id=277584&company_id=3671&redirectaddress=http%3A//www.irvinschein.com) The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Insurance as it appears will be mandatory. Tail end coverage is an option, and a good one at that. Your absolutely right, we do leave ourselves wide open and it will be unfortunate if someone cannot or chooses not to purchase that insurance coverage. As much as people are going to complain about it, it is just the way it is.
It is not a unique situation to inspectors. Construction company builds a house, then closes shop, deck falls down injuring people. Did the contractor have insurance after he closes shop?
Real estate agent sells you a house, recommends waiving the inspection, no time, house has a foundation that is unstable but the agent gave up realty and is working in a factory, who is going to pay because the agent no longer carries insurance?
Insurance is a smart business choice for the INSPECTOR, therefor if you go into business you better prepare to cover your butt when you quit or retire. It is just a fact of being self employed, no matter the profession.
Extremely short sighted and sad to see that the towel has been thrown in. Mandatory E&O will spell the end of the experienced and sole proprietorship operations. I like many others have spent decades in the construction business and have forgotton more than the average graduate from a community college will ever know about construciton.
Mandatory E&O will, however, satisfy the conglomerates and the franchisers at the expense of the public. Sad day indeed to see that the big guys win and the small guys are forced out.
Less than 100/mnth for my House, Less than 100/month for my Truck and more than twice that for Home Inspection Insurance with no claim’s ever.
Something is just not right about that. I hope that Kim Smith from Hub InterNational can help even that out a bit but I doubt anyone cares in the High Up offices of Lloyds of London, I mean TORONTO.
The winners: P2P, ISS, OAHI the insurance companies and one or two other franchisers… Believe me nothing for the consumer.
But on the positive side the roofing industry can continue to rip off home owners with no over sight, insurance requirements or building permits.
Those people on the committee sure did a good job. As for HUB: it’s all about the money$. Do not fool yourself for one moment that they will attempt to lower rates. This business is now a cash cow for the insurance agents.
Sad but now they can get on with making snow tires mandatory! You just got to love the government of Ontario and their cronies. That includes the committee members!
P.s. What could you really expect when the committee was made up of an insurance agent and two franchise owners? Hang your head in shame.
As usual you are right. But this is what happens when you have the government listening to a handful, particularly the likes of P2P! This process has been anything but open. The profession is being asked to comment on the recommendations after the horse has left the barn. Does anyone really think changes will be made once the recommendations are released? Good luck!
Watch the insurance rates go up, the insurers now have a captive monopoly.
You can bet the government has no work around for the insurance issue.
As I said before the only option to defeat the dictates of the government is for all to stand together and refuse to conduct home inspections for a week. If you don’t think that would send a strong signal think again. What would Realtors do if suddenly they or their clients could not move forward with the purchase transactions?
But again we know that won’t happen because instead of standing together the opportunists will pick up the slack.
In closing we both know as do others that emails to MCS go unanswered. They only provide a reply email saying the email was rec’d.
If the rates do go up I am with you Raymond. I will fight the government like you will not believe. First on the chopping block will be any Association that feels they should have the right to control Home Inspectors beyond membership.We all know the groups involved and are just waiting for the outcome for sure.
At this point I have lost any trust in any Association linked to Toronto. No reason I guess.
He is far from Imaginary and you will come to realize that when it comes to connections they are far reaching than just a little group that seams to want control in the Toronto area.
As for everybody’s friend, this is not true Roy.
As to the other statement… absolutely.
)
) would go out of business. DIY home owners would be held responsible for their shoddy work, causing home buyers to sue home sellers. This would in turn damage the sales of companies like Lowes, Home Depot and Home Hardware, and Inspections would no longer be necessary.