Please help get rid or the picture requirements for wind mits.

Hello and thanks to all who have given your support by phone calls and emails.

I would like to hear any ideas you may have to make sure these dangerous and useless requirements are not on the next Florida Wind Mitigation Form.

Now would be a great time to wet your feet and participate in the message board. Do not be concerned about what the regulars say. Stand up for yourselves and fellow inspectors and help do what is right and needed before someone ends up dead.

Feel free to contact me by phone or email anytime if you do not want your opinions or ideas posted here.

I laugh when I’m told that the picture requirements are to help reduce fraud!! Hell, I’ve got boat loads of pictures - if I was a fraud-minded individual - the picture requirements would not present much of a problem.

Precisely. It is a very dangerous and completely useless practice. Thanks for giving your opinion.

We are licensed professionals sent their to use our knowledge to make a determination.

I am fine with external pictures but those in attics are not necessary and will result in someone getting killed.

The insurance companies are even using the pictures you and I provide for many other reasons.

I had an agent call about a pool/hot tub that was in the photos and told me it will result in the client paying more.

For your clients sake when showing exterior elevation shots try to only get the home in view and leave your clients the privacy they deserve.

If insurance companies want or demand photos of the property then fine. Let them pay for them and I will be glad to do it. They are currently just getting double duty out of our hard work. We are all being taken advantage of. Our lives are risked to provide inside attic shots that prove nothing and without them they do not give the clients the credits they DESERVE. That is wrong. If I observe it and say it is there that is good enough.

I was involved in the conversations for the revisions and explained that the metal detector is not accuracte as it can not delineate from 8d, 6d, staples, roof tin tabs, your ring or any other metal it is close to. The pics of the trusses with the lines are not accurate or needed. The bldg code inspector verified the deck attachment. The pics of the shiners are not needed. Some pics make sense,ie straps, hip roof, house pics, pics of the noas’ and/or revelant docs. Not all construction methods have been tested, so why are homeowners being penalized if there old homes do not comply. Many in the HVHZ standing for more than 50 years with 1/4" staps, with 2 - 16d nails in dade county pine, one on each side and the strap is embedded in concrete on both sides as the girder/rafter beam was in place during the pour, on top of the form. coral rock homes sit on small piles of blocks and have no rebar, yet have been standing more than 80 yrs in the HVHZ.

The insurance industry will scratch us off like ticks on a dog. It is as powerful as oil. Exercise your 1st amendment right as many have died to protect. Our country is going to bottom out soon and we will rebound, but until the pile of peoples belongings quite littering the neighborhoods as they are evicted and the homes deteriorate from lack of upkeep we must all stick together to help each other. Offer free inspections to those in need, help cover some openings at no charge, Do what you can to help the homeowner survive as you are also helping this country to survive.

I have seen soooo much hardship in these homes I am ready to quit as the insurance rates continue to ravage our citizens trying to survive. One rep said it like this, I feel like I am holding these clients upside down and shaking their last pennies from their pockets.

Great post…thanks for taking the time.

Mike, dong wind mit inspections is a little like joining the armed forces.

  1. Joining the armed forces is voluntary, so is doing wind mits.
  2. You obey all orders, in this case the orders come from the insurance adjusters.
  3. They don’t pay the guys on the front lines enough, same for wind mit inspections.
  4. You are not forced to re-enroll. If you don’t like it don’t do wind mits.
  5. You knew the dangers involve when volunteering, same with wind mits.
    I charge $135 for a wind mit, you charge what you feel yours are worth. If you give yours away for free, when doing an inspection then you know what they are worth.

Thanks Nick for you insight. Now lets keep those requirements off of the next form.

Aubrey you seem to always miss my points :roll:

I have no problem with doing them or the pay I get for doing them.

The insurance companies do not make the rules the OIR does.
The OIR should set the insurance companies straight but they do not.
The OIR should take responsibility for what they come up with but they do not.

I Only want this terrible life threatening mistake corrected.

As many are now coming forward and agreeing that the photo requirements are deadly and just not needed.

Lets just make sure on the next form this requirement is removed for your sake, my sake and the clients well being so they get what they deserve every time even if we cannot get that perfect shot.

Many many many times I can see and verify what I must to write an accurate report and the photos are just not needed or worth the risk.

I honestly think the point taken is that before anyone could claim ignorance on a faulty or inacurate report. Now if you post “false or fake” pictures then it is proven that you are fraudulently making a report. The pictures also prove you at least went to the property.

I think it was our own demise that this came about, ignorance, questioning the integrity due to the number of inaccurate reports, and blantant lies. I see where the insurance company is coming from. Do I agree with it? What else can you do? How about every fraudulent report comes with a $1000 fine? Not a QUESTIONABLE report one where the person was no way qualified, educated, or even factual in his findings but one where it is evident that is was false and a typical and educated insurance inspector should have known better. What about that?

True fraud and not mistakes are difficult to prove but when proven true fraud should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I am not saying do not take pictures.

I still will for precisely those reasons.

Sometimes it is not safe and that should not hurt the customer when I can observe it but not photograph it.

The insurance companies twist what it states on the form to their liking and do not give the credits unless the photos are there. They seem to forget about the visible and accessible part of the sentence.

I would strongly suggest anyone doing them still takes the pictures to prove they were there and to prove what they found but it should be for our records and our defense not a requirement.

The issue arises, who levies the fine? Will there be an appeal process? OIR and Insurance companies have no authority over licensing. Does anyone think that DBPR would have the time to go after each one? Who’s interpretation of the form should one use? York’s, ID’s, Nachi’s, AAA’s, contractor’s institutes’ or Meeker’s? This is the great reason why licensing solves nothing. Now, if inspectors’ had a state licensing board, you would at least have a system.

Gross inaccuracies can be seen with photos, especially when compared to statistics, that is why they are required and why reports are categorically rejected and re-inspection is a growing segment.

How many useless pictures that mean nothing or are from other inspections are used?

Unless you are doing re-inspections then you should be against pictures.

If you are doing re-inspections then I understand why you would want to keep them as they lead to more work.

I am not looking for what is good for business. I am looking for what is safe and good for clients.

John S. does you company do re-inspections for citizens or any other insurance companies?

Excellent points John, but what is the penalty for fraudulent inspections? Nothing as far as I know. So what stops unethical people from being unethical? Nothing! Pictures at least can point out what was seen. and if the person truely went there.

I agree, with all you said and was just making a point. That there is not penalty for unethical people. The insurance companies decide who can do the inspections then why can’t they mandate the rules as far as penalties?

So the clients and us inspectors should not be the ones paying the price for scumbags.

Russell, is your company involved with re-inspections for insurance companies?

We do not participate in any re-inspection programs.

That is a very interesting take. Me personally it would take a lot longer to fake a report then to do it right and take the pictures.

I am not sure I understand Mikes claim that pictures hurt the client. It seems to me unless you are committing fraud then there is no way it can hurt your customer.

Are you implying that pictures create more re-inspections? Why?

As mentioned here before if your not happy or uncomfortalbe doing them go back to stuccoing or something else.

Pictures do not hurt the client. When they cannot be taken the client does not get the credit they deserve. Example no shiner