Originally Posted By: gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
For ONLY those states that require inspectors to carry E&O insurance, NACHI is building an association-less consumer verification website.
Any inspector (regardless of association affiliation) will be able to enter his E&O insurance information and contact information. The inspector will also give NACHI electronic permission to verify that his policy exists and is current.
NACHI will then list him on this consumer verification site. NACHI will also be building an E&O insurance verification seal for use by NACHI members, similar to http://www.nachi.org/webseal.htm
This website will be open to consumers, government officials, and REALTORs for thier use.
NOTE: This site is NOT designed to encourage the purchase of E&O insurance as it will only be available in states that already require home inspectors to carry insurance by law.
Originally Posted By: escanlan This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
That's a great idea and benefit for the members in states requiring E&O. What is the possibility that idea can be extended to our Pennsylvania Brethren that are required to provide proof of association full membership? You could develop a PA Member seal for that and leave the other member seal as is.
-- Manny (Emmanuel) Scanlan
Knowledge is power, but sharing knowledge brings peace!
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick
What would NACHI's liability to the consumer be if I were to cancel my E&O (or they were to cancel me) and the data was not changed in your data base? If you verify, after I tell a consumer I am when I am not, do you not become an instant party to the lawsuit?
I am considering the difficulty that has been experienced, in the past, relating to keeping up with membership status and applying it to insured/not-insured status - on a real time basis. There seems to be much at stake here, for the association as a whole. You have some pretty deep pockets that will make any lawyer salivate when he learns of your "verification button".
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
So, Chuck, you are proposing a verification button that disclaims “what”? That the information is correct? Complete? Up to date? Accurate? or that NACHI stands behind it?
Anyway, Chuck, when the only thing between an experienced lawyer and the key to the NACHI bank is a "disclaimer", you can bet the farm that we're going to court.
Originally Posted By: bkelly1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Is this coming from someone with no insurance?
There are many disclaimers, that can be held up in court. Nick could also work with frea, towers, and whoever and get some information on renewal. ..Why is everyone so negative???? 
Originally Posted By: ekartal This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
Anyway, Chuck, when the only thing between an experienced lawyer and the key to the NACHI bank is a "disclaimer", you can bet the farm that we're going to court.
Howdy Jim 
Nice to still vistit once in a while. I wouldn't worry too much about the NACHI bank because according to Nick, NACHI doesn't have any money and relies on contributions from - little angels . Most of the revenue is spent on postage. Let me guess now, I got it all wrong eh?
Originally Posted By: bkelly1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The information provided on this link is believed to be current. This is an initial link for you the consumer.We recommend you follow up with the inspector, or their insurance provider to verify all information is still accurate, and active.
Originally Posted By: cmccann This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Wow, you mean to tell me all those disclaimers I see everywhere aren’t worth sh!t? Wow, thanks for that Jim.
Has NACHI been sued from listing inspectors on Inspectorseek? Same thing would apply here. So I guess we should do away with that also. Jim, your just dead set against anything that may separate members, whether it's good or bad.
Oh and BTW, How the hell did you get me proposing anything from me posting "disclaimers"? You are the spin doctor.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
cmccann wrote:
Wow, you mean to tell me all those disclaimers I see everywhere aren't worth sh!t? Wow, thanks for that Jim. 
Has NACHI been sued from listing inspectors on Inspectorseek? Same thing would apply here. So I guess we should do away with that also. Jim, your just dead set against anything that may separate members, whether it's good or bad.
Oh and BTW, How the hell did you get me proposing anything from me posting "disclaimers"? You are the spin doctor.
Nope. I'm just playing dumb like Hagarty and asking the questions, that's all. IMO, the association should remain out of the business of validating one's credentials. There is too much liability in that for a bunch of volunteers to take on the task or a paid staff of three or four people trying to keep up with 5,000 plus on a real time basis. Just my opinion, that's all.
I simply asked if you were proposing, Chuck. Never said you proposed anything. Take it easy.
I don't see this as a way of separating or distinguishing between members, anyway, Chuck. this is open to the entire public - not just NACHI. This is going to be involving a lot of work with a lot of people who are not even accountable to the association. Just not a good idea...
Originally Posted By: bkelly1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
Anyway, Chuck, when the only thing between an experienced lawyer and the key to the NACHI bank is a "disclaimer", you can bet the farm that we're going to court.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Lots of them. It is a mistaken impression that nfp means “broke”. Most non-profits take in millions per year and they are sued.
Get some tainted blood from the Red Cross and see what your attorney can do for you. 
You may be right in the end and the attorney fails to win for some reason, but the expense of defending oneself in court is always an incentive to settle out of court. This thing could get pretty expensive without any trials.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bkelly1 wrote:
Sure looks the same. If a lawyer wanted too..
No sir. Big, big difference.
You see, NACHI is only certifying my eligibility for membership to its association. It is not certifying my ability to inspect a home.
On the other hand, validating my insurance status to the public when my state requires it, validates that I can legally inspect a home. That assumes major liability if, in fact, my carrier cancelled my policy on the way to the inspection and I didn't even know about it until I got my certified letter in the mail two days later.
Keep in mind that I am only speaking about being sued...not losing a suit. The cost of defending a suit can sometimes be greater than what the court would award which is why so many insurance companies prefer to settle.
That is why, IMO, we should keep our distance from this.
