The wind mitigation inspection you are getting includes only one visit to your property any additional visits for any reason will be charged the same rate as the first inspection.
Anyone know if the insurance companies must still accept our form or send out their own guy or has that also been conveniently removed.
I suggest we all only accept cash whenever possible.
Mike’s tip of the day: If they give you a check always cash it at their bank even if there is a fee. Your bank will screw you if they stop payment and then they will take the money out of you account and assess a fee around $30.
In other words if you do an inspection and the client does not like the results they may stop payment and you will be screwed for your fee plus penalty.
You should be able to tell your clients what discounts they will be getting, not the dollar amount, just what they will get credit for.
Once they know this up front, then they can decide if they even want the inspection.
I have never had a problem getting paid for a wind mitigation inspection and only once did someone not pay me…in almost 18 years.
Is there going to be a class on how to fill out this form?
Using the conversation I had with a Citizens higher up, it will be something along the lines of, This is not a code inspection and is not designed to expose any code violations. The company will not be responsible for any damages financial or otherwise as a result of any errors or misinterpretations made by the inspector or employees or any code violations or improper installation techniques.
Just my opinion but I don’t think any type of disclaimer will work.
First off the form is a state authorized document, you can’t alter it in any way aside from filling in the blanks. Secondly, the addittional page you have a disclaimer on need not be considered in any context as a part of the report. Thirdly, the option to conduct the inspection or not is up to the “qualified individual” with the license. When you fill it out and submit it you accept the consequences. There are plenty of threats repeatedly built in. Lastly, if a simple disclaimer could be utilized effectively I don’t think E&O insurance would be immpossible to get coverage for on these. Besides it is obvious (at least to me) that the main liability is going to be charges of fraud and negligence directed at the inspector/firms by insurers to DBPR and actions against licensees in fines and revocations.
I am not a legal expert, these are my considered opinions. I don’t intend to argue about it, just telling you all what I think.
Just as a great many other companies and insurance companies I alter my wind mits. I remove the 1802 re part and put in bold letters on top of the form to read all notes in red carefully. I then make notes about how I come to decisions.
Well then I stand corrected, who do you use? On the other hand they wouldn’t cover negligence or fraud anyway and I doubt they cover governmental action. Not an expert, not looking for an argument.
You may want to check to see if you can alter a state form. I think that would defeat the purpose of “All inspections must be on the 1802 form” as opposed to inspections can be on any form you wish.
I remember that the old 1145 (WDO) form could not be altered in any way. I am fairly certain that all state required forms are that way.
I add pages to the original four pages and can also add a disclaimer to the page that has my license and NACHI cert on it.
I see them altered all the time. Almost every-time a client provides on it is not the exact thing from the state.
Mine has had disclaimers and notes on it for years and I have never had one comment about it…
Until about 2 days ago. The same as-shole on the 25 floors agent said she had 10 others in front of her without re writing. I told him she sucked and modified his report for him.
He is also placed on my do not do business list because he was an extreme pain in the a-s from the start. That is why I put in a NOTES file with all problem customers. When I see that I automatically am booked for ever.
To be honest I do remove the identification number so I do not get charged with trying to pass off an altered document for an unaltered one.
It seems that from my experience as long as they get the info they want the form does not have to be a true copy of the states form.
Here is an example of my current working page one.
These are my opinions only.
If you say it enough people will believe it:
The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students and employees, the better they perform. The effect is named after Pygmalion, a Cypriot sculptor in a narrative by Ovid in Greek mythology, who fell in love with a female statue he had carved out of ivory.
The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, and, in this respect, people will internalize their negative label, and those with positive labels succeed accordingly. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regard to education and social class.
There will never be a perfect form, but with regards to:
Q #2, a reroof with a permit can have a date of installation but never past a final inspection (open permit). Yet meet these criterias.
Q #4 should be an, “aproved metal connector”, instead of the non-construction terminologies. Ask any structural engineer, they are call straps, truss hangers, etc… Requiring 3 nails for clips has now penalized older homes with 1/4" straps that have gone thru 50 plus yrs in the HVHZ. This has never been tested, especially in a home with rafters built with Dade County Pine. These homeowners will now get toe nails, not rated etc… Congrats must be given for reversing the wraps to 2 nails plus 1.
Q #5 will continue to steal the Hip roof credit from many that deserve it. The ARA presentation in Sept 2010 addressed this issue. Flat roof WTF does this mean?
Q #6 rips everyone off with a newer roof and is in conflict with the FBC,
Q #9 must have designed during happy hour as a joke, I’m sure underwriting will be calling each other saying "is this A, B, or C.
Thank the lord for removing the wall construction question as the insurance mit gurus could not agree on what a wall was. The same for gable end bracing.
Maybe I should pay the fee and form a corporation calling it the World Hurricane, nasty *** weather protection experts and mitigation warriors, forgot need to pay a lobbist.
I’m glad to see that a lanscape architect or any type engineer sign these, but an engineer or contractor can hire people to inspect, but an architect can’t. A Building Code Official has the authority to oversee/manage a building dept, but can’t hire inpectors. I guess hospitals, highrises, commerical construction is not as complicated as building a house.
The form is a joke. Good luck to the shutter wizards, wow.
Only the homeowners will suffer more in the worst economicial diasterous times of our life. Let me know if you see an inurance company living under an expressway or in a car.
People will charge to get the work and feed their families, down to $20 if needed. I am gald that I am not doing anymore mits.
But remember, if you say it enough times they will believe it
I guarantee it and cannot blame them one bit. At least they or we are working.
There are a great many that are on government assistance or stealing and robing to survive.
One thing is for sure those who can do these inspections will and in the last couple of years that number has probably increased 500% just a guess but likely.
Subject property is built in 1982, has a shingle roof, which is replaced in 2004 - this time with a permit - Subject property also has a metal, standing seam patio roof that has been on since who knows when…
Answer for question 2 is C - One of more roof coverings do not meet the requirements of Answer “A” or “B” - Therefore no credit is received for the new shingles installed.
I would say that a metal standing seam or “Elite” type(metal and Styrofoam) does not count. They would be riders on the policy and not usually covered. That is where the “structurally connected” came from.
I agree - That’s my question - the structurally connected disclaimer only applies to the roof geometery question - I don’t see this caveat on the roof covering section and you can bet that the underwriters will not see it either.
