Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Lfranklin:
His post basically asked for more information. Joe F. wrote his post at the same time I wrote mine above. We did this independently. We are all trying to be fair to Mr. Napadow. Although I removed him from the main pages of this site, he has full access to this message board.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe F.:
I'll even settle for less. I would like Nations Hazard to at least show they can provide insurance legally. I don't believe Mr. Napadow has even revealed what states he can operate in.
If he opened for business yesterday, I won't hold it against him. Everyone in business had their first day.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mr. Bader:
Did Nations Hazard fail to comply with your Cease & Desist Order (which would be a crime), or did they simply receive one (not a crime)?
What's this about not being "properly appointed by any admittted insurer in the country" ???
Thanks so much for helping us. I know its above and beyond your duties. We all want to do what's right for our membership, the consumer, and Mr. Napadow.
For now... Nations Hazard stays off NACHI's site but Mr. Napadow is welcome on this board.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
Privately, Ive asked for similar information from Nations about three months ago. Like my initial experience with NACHI, I wanted to find out why folks were starting to bash NAtions.
UNLIKE dealing with you and with NACHI, the respnses I received from Nations were, I felt, somewhat evasive and matter-of-fact. While all this was going on, all reference to Nations and some rather agressive dialogue were abruptly removed from InspectionNews.com.
So, Mr. Napadow, about those questions... And, why do you feel that there is an effort to squash you by your competition? And, why were all those posts removed from IN.com? Supposedly, there were some threats of lawsuits. Is this true and by whom?
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
Your right; everyone has a first day. First customer gets to sigh the first dollar the store made, and it gets hung on the wall behind the cash register. But the real question is whether he was legal on day one. Or if he was even CLOSE to being legal, and knew he was operating illegally and for how long.
To Bader, I've sent him a personal e-mail this evening. Let's see what he says...
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe:
Thanks for reminding us that you can't trust what you read on inspectioNAZInews. Posts are often deleted and edited over there.
The first amendment is first for a reason.
Nick
PS Mr. Napadow: I personally removed Nations Hazard from the NACHI main pages including http://www.nachi.org/insurance.htm No one else has access or authority to edit those pages.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick and Joe,
I have contacted Michael by email several times in the last several days.
In doing so it was my intention to get the information of which companies are providing this coverage on behalf of his company. The response that I received was one that Michael was going to check with his legal counsel. Can't say I blame him on that one, this could end up being a big mess.
On behalf of Michael, I would like to state for the record I have not had one inspector come forward to make the claim they are not receiving the insurance they paid for.
I have heard lots of mud slinging and name calling but I am still left without any of the facts. I am not sure why Ted came here to begin with but he has not come back since. Anyone know exactly what this company did wrong? I DON'T!
Of course I am not defending anyone here, I would just like to hear the facts. The only reason that I would think that anyone would not want a company around like this is because it would make it easier on the part time inspector that many don't want in this industry (you konw the weekend warrior).
Again, like the energizer bunny..........STILL WAITING
Originally Posted By: Michael Napadow This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Gentlemen:
Last night was an interesting, if not disturbing, sequence of events.
I have contacted my main contact @ Lloyds in England and sent him the information to access your message board and have requested that he post a substantiation of Nations Hazard’s position.
I hope this will quell the accusations of impropriety that have been leveled against our company.
I will continue to update this message board as necessary.
Thank you for your patience.
PS. The NACHI logo has been removed from our site.
-- Michael F. Napadow
Nations Hazard Insurance
129 Canterfield Parkway West
West Dundee, Illinois 60118-9004
Toll-Free: 866/351-4680
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi Michael
I find your last post to be obtuse in the extreme, the issue that has arisen in the last few days appears to be, not whether any insurance company has agreed to underwrite your product, but rather whether your agency is licensed to sell any insurance products anywhere in this country at this time, and also whether you were selling E&O and Pre-paid legal coverage at any point with the required licensing.
it appears at this time that you solely wish to deflect attention at this time from yourself to Lloyds who have no bearing on this issue. For those a little less well informed Lloyds is solely a secondary insurer in this country NO ONE buying a policy of any type in this country will have to policy written by Lloyds.
Enough of the 2 stepping, you obviously do not wish to address the questions that have been asked in plain English.
Originally Posted By: Allison Iacopini This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Let’s get something absolutely clear…if Nations Hazard is legit we are happy for them to enter the E & O arena. There’s nothing wrong with legit competition. My earlier comments were simply a warning. FREA has already had two innocent inspectors come over to us after being with Nation’s Hazard and being told by their State’s Insurance commissioner that they are not operating legally in their State. This is problematical to the inspector for at least two reasons:
1)They have lost the premium they paid
2)They have lost coverage for prior inspections because their “continuous coverage” requirement has been broken.
To suggest that FREA is leading some Machiavellian plot to destroy the competition is patent nonsense. It is just a warning to inspectors to be careful how they spend their hard earned cash. Check with your state to see if any insurance carrier is acting within the confines of the state’s regulatory requirements. Nothing wrong with being prudent. If it turns out they are legit, at least they’ve been given a boatload of exposure on this site…
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I have been in contact with Ted Bader. He has forwarded me some factual information which for ethical reasons, I cannot post at this time. What I CAN tell our membership is that there seems to be some serious questions as to the ability for Nations Insurance to sell anything more than pre-paid legal services in any more than two states. They are apparently not permitted to sell insurance in their home state. Whether they are a “company” or an “agency” some questions remain.
To Gerry's point, let's start the basis of questions as to the legality of selling insurance, first. Then move on to who the actual underwriters of the policy are. As Mr. Napadow has mentioned before that Liberty Mutual writes in Massachusets, I fail to see what his bringing Lloyds of London into the picture has to do with anything...
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I can think of many things Lloyds of London could post here that would clear Nations Hazard.
I have been informed that they are considering coming on this message board to do just that.
What if Lloyds comes on this board, explains that it was all just a bureaucratic clerical error, and that the error is on their end? Are we still going to string Nations Hazard up to dry? Won't that be hurting inspectors who want pay-per-inspection E&O insurance?
The owner of pre-paid legal services is a dear friend of mine. At first, the man who started pre-paid legal services went thru the same hell. Insurance commissioners charged him with selling insurance without a license, etc. The law firm that provides pre-paid legal services for all of PA is owned by one of my personal attorneys. His father was my grandfather's attorney. Look where they are today.
I just don't want NACHI to be part of the destruction of a potentially good thing.
I have asked Ted Bader from Washington's Insurance Commission to come to our http://www.nachi.org/spokane.htm meeting on the 13th. He agreed but had to make sure WA would cover his expenses. I didn't wait. I agreed to cover his expenses so that he could attend and explain it all to me in person.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi Nick
I can think of nothing that a representative of Lloyds could post here that would exonerate Nations Hazard as Lloyds is not the regulatory body in any state of this country.
The initial issue here is the one that nations hazard have fallen foul of, as Joe F and I have previously stated, that they did apparently not hold valid licenses for the sale of their products in any state. and they have appeared to be extreemly evasive since May in answering questions about their products.
I do not have any kind of downer on anyone who is trying to build a business and anyone has the right to make a mistake along the line. but not in this area where the industry is so tightly regulated and our members livelyhoods are at stake.
I believe that Nations Hazard have been less than forth comming about their business activities, and the smoke screen that appears when any direct questions are asked serltainly does not bode well for their future should they be able to continue in business.
I personally think that a pay per inspection policy would be a great idea and of tremendous value to our part time inspectors and those just starting out in the business, but unfortunately I think what has taken place this week has set that concept back years.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Gerry:
A lot of this may be just heartache on my part. We put many years, thousands of dollars, and hundreds of legal man hours into NACHI's agreement between inspector/client. Same for our SOP. We wove the two together so our members don't lose lawsuits. It has paid off for our members. Our members suffer nearly no suits. Yet with a few exceptions (like Griffith Agency), we still pay the same high premiums as stupid ASHI members. E&O insurance companies are finally coming around to kissing our @ss. They should. Our member's premiums are pure profit to them, what with nearly no claims being filed by NACHI members. We deserve to be rewarded for having worked hard to keep our members out of court. While waiting for the underwriter's actuaries to finally notice this about NACHI members, pay-per-inspection would have been nice.
Nick
PS We won't have to wait long. I got us some great insurance deals coming.
