Ontario licensing. Hey Ontario members, I've never steered you wrong. Take my advice.

Apply for your CMI if you qualify. I’m not even going to ask that you trust me on this one… if later you think it was a waste of money, let me know and I’ll refund it 100%. No questions asked.

I am convinced there will be a CMI-friendly grandfathering clause in the Ontario home inspection licensing that is forthcoming. And if for any reason in the future you feel I steered you wrong, I’ll refund all your money. But I’m positive I’m giving you very sound advice here. Apply now.


Hey, my state can’t figure out the how, only they passed the licensing law…perhaps you can get in with the CEU’s, certification, or CMI. Seems like RI doesn’t have the $ to put anything into place…

Rhode Island is a mess. They adopted licensing years ago but forgot to fund it. Kind of like Social Security in the U.S. :wink:

Good afternoon Nick

Thats a very generous offer, but of more concern is the insurance issue. Whether one has a CMI or whatever other designation is accepted the fact remains, low volume inspectors are the ones who will be the victims of a unfair licencing bill, if licencing should come to pass.

Do you have any suggestions as to the insurance matter? Self funded group insurance?

Are you sure you don’t want to move to Ontario Nick? I now there are a few openings for you at least.:mrgreen:

I know, it passed state congress this year (again I think) contractors board has no clue what to do to put into place.

What is your issue with mandatory insurance.

A) it protects the inspector
B) The cost averages just 2/3rds of one inspection each month
C) Insurance costs have been proven to go down when made mandatory in a state/province. (This was informed to me by Nick)

Mandatory insurance is a representation of professionalism in the industry, same as any other (Realtors, doctors, lawyers etc)

Nick that is a great decision, good on you.

And further to this…OntarioACHI brokered a deal with Kim Smith of HUB, which gets OntarioACHI members a substantial savings on premiums.

Insurance is a business decision. What do you expect will happen once you have a claim?

  1. Likely you may be dropped by insurer, or
  2. Face substantially higher premiums either by your current provider or sent to a higher facilitator.
  3. Did you factor in coverage for two or three years after you retire from inspecting?
  4. Should you have a claim you have paid the premium and the deductible. That is quite an expensive policy.
  5. Client still must launch legal action, and any resolution to the suit could take 2-3 years! How does that protect the consumer.
  6. You have no control over how the insurer handles the claim. They could as we are all well aware settle out of court. Then you are painted as a bad risk even though you may not be at fault or face item 1 or 2 above.
  7. You have no control over premium increases should the rest of your colleagues prove to be a bad risk and insurers increase premiums across the board.
  8. In many instances insurance is being promoted as some type of warranty.
  9. Insurance is for your protection for catastrophic loss by a client that you failed to protect by rendering a bad inspection.
  10. Meritless claims must be considered which must be defended/reported.
  11. Why can PE opt out of E&O and why shouldn’t inspectors be allowed to?

What is considered a substantial saving? That is subjective dependent on ones view.

Again why doesn’t the government limit liability to $250K or $500K?

Again no one knows what any of you have suggested to the MCS because its not an open process.

We know that stats indicate inspectors as a whole face less complaints then do other professions such as roofers, agents, car mechanics…

If an inspector is doing less than 100 inspections a year should they be charged the same premium? Premiums should be tailored to the number of inspections just as car insurance rates are reflective of driving record, where you reside, type of car, yearly mileage, whether you are single or married…

What is considered “substantial”? I’m one of those people that can’t justify joining an organization just for the sake of it–now if there was a tangible financial benefit, that’s another story…

2/3rds of one inspection per month? What is that jargon? Come on come clean, what is the cost?

A) it protects the inspector

I do not think so! It will make the inspector a target for any ambulance chasing lawyer. I have stated before and I will state it again.

I was sued on two occassions. Both suits were frivilous and for under $8,000. I defended my self ( no lawyer period ) and I won on both ocassions. Would E&O have defended the suits? Not bloody likely. They would have settled out of court. Why? As Kevin O’leary says: “Money”

Guess what then my premiums go up!

By the way, I do not believe Civil Engineers are mandated to carry E&O.

As far as Ontario NACHI is concerned. Five days and waiting!

The insurance will settle with your deductible and not fight they then raise your price for insurance as you have had a claim .


If you don’t think so, then I guess you just don’t know.

Nothing states that if you have insurance you must use them, if some comes to you with a “frivolous” item, the. You have the right to deal with it.

BUT if miss something big and YOU are responsible then that same insurance will protect you.

Who said anything about engineers?

In any one of the instances that you were sued, what would you have done if it was $80,000 not $8000 and you were at fault? You probably would of appreciated that $2400 a year insurance premium.

I am sure no one here cares, but over at OntarioACHI an intercept program is being developed to prevent just that. I am not fully educated on the details, but I believe a basically a lawyer will intercept a claim before insurance to ensure it is either A) frivolous and it will fought before it gets to insurance or B) it is a worth while claim for the client and it then goes to insurance.

Again that is just a short, I don’t know the exact details.

I think you are wrong we all care but Having seen and communicated on this subject for about 11 years please do not be surprised if it fails .

Actually Timothy most if not all e&o policies require the policy holder to report all instances of claims against you so they have a correct liability risk factor on which to base further/ future premiums and most state if you chose to defend a claim they then hold no further liability for that claim should you lose. In essence they have the right to use your deductible to settle at no cost to them and if you disagree then they bow out at no cost to them. An intercept program sounds nice but the insurance companies still would get notice of a claim.