Looks great under a quick review
Something should be put in the form defining what is safe to do. I do not believe It is worth the RISK to find a shiner by crawling around risking our lives and the clients property if we believe it is a 8D nail is there based on our experience,
Just the notion that this crap can be verified by someone behind a Desk that has never dome them is ludacris.
I would like to offer this open Invitation to discuss the many problems with the OIR. Please feel free to contact me any time to discuss your vast problems. I believe I could help you and the inspectors out there a lot just by clearing up a few things. It would only take 5 to 10 minutes listening to how I can stop the fraud and inaccuracies. via skype or something similar… You have nothing to lose.
Contact me and lets get this stuff straight. I know between the OIR an Myself we can get this process done correctly.
Lets at least try 
Nick,
The biggest issue with a wind mit seems to be if an insurance company denies it and the client either wants their money back, or wants the inspector to pay the insurance increase amount. Insurability and/or insurance premium amount should be added to section 1, IMO.
I’ve had several inspectors call me and state that their former client wanted them to pay the difference in premium amount after the insurance company sent an “auditor” out to check on the wind mit. Since there are as many interpretations of a wind mit form as there are wind mit inspectors…the audits often come back different, not necessarily correct, but different.
Seems a little bit long to me, here is mine.
Looks good, how about something addressing the insurance company taking action (cancelling) against the homeowner due to something they see in our pictures (usually the back yard).
Thanks Nick…
You all do realize that this is on the form
"The definitions on this form are for inspection purposes only and cannot be used to certify any product or construction feature as offering protection from hurricanes."
Nick, I would make section 5 an Arbitration clause. Also as said earlier some thing to address liability due to the insurance company’s actions (raising rates or denying discounts)
need to add disclaimer that the inspector caused no damage to the home at the time of the inspection.
Yeah I don’t like that. Some people are going to read that and think why the hell am I getting this done then. It should say something along the lines of
“Statistically the wind mitigating features on this form have been shown provide an increased protection rate from hurricanes over having no features at all. But because each home is different, and all hurricanes are different this inspection can not be used to guarantee protection from hurricanes.”
This Agreement is between the CLIENT whose name appears below and ____________________, herein after referred to as “INSPECTOR”. The INSPECTOR will conduct a wind mitigation inspection at the Property located at _____________________. The inspection will cover only those items listed on the Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection form, which may be found at http://www.nachi.org/documents/FL-OIR-nov-2009-wind-mit-form.pdf., The mitigation inspection is not a full inspection and is not intended to inspect any particular component in the home except items for items listed on the aforementioned form relating to approved stronger methods to resist wind load on the home in adverse conditions. PLEASE REVIEW THE AFOREMENTIONED FORM BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS AGREEMENT SO THAT YOU WILL BE AWARE OF THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE INSPECTION. The purpose of this inspection is to determine if certain procedures have been performed on the home to help withstand adverse conditions. It is not an assurance that the subject home will be protected or that it can withstand specific types of adverse conditions. This limited inspection may help you qualify for a reduced insurance rate, but is not a guarantee. By signing this Agreement you indicate that you have read and understand that it is a limited inspection intended only to satisfy the requirements of an insurance company. Additionally, the CLIENT and any third partie(s) who rely on the information provided in the report also agree to all the following additional provisions in this Agreement.
- INSPECTOR’S inspection of the property and the report are in no way a guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the future use, operability, habitability or suitability of the home/building or its components. All warranties, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are expressly excluded to the fullest extent allowed by law.
- INSPECTOR assumes no liability for the cost of repair or replacement of unreported defects or deficiencies either current or arising in the future. CLIENT acknowledges that the liability of INSPECTOR, its agents and/or employees, for claims or damages, costs of defense or suit, attorney’s fees and expenses arising out of or related to the INSPECTOR’S negligence or breach of any obligation under this Agreement, including errors and omissions in the inspection or the report, shall be limited to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the fee paid to the INSPECTOR, and this liability shall be exclusive. CLIENT waives any claim for consequential, exemplary, special or incidental damages or for the loss of the use of the home/building even if the CLIENT has been advised of the possibility of such damages. The parties acknowledge that the liquidated damages are not intended as a penalty but are intended (i) to reflect the fact that actual damages may be difficult and impractical to ascertain; (ii) to allocate risk among the INSPECTOR and CLIENT; and (iii) to enable the INSPECTOR to perform the inspection at the stated fee.
- INSPECTOR does not perform engineering, architectural, plumbing, or any other job function requiring an occupational license in the jurisdiction where the inspection is taking place.
- In the event of a claim against INSPECTOR, CLIENT agrees to supply INSPECTOR with the following: (1) written notification of adverse conditions within 14 days of discovery; and (2) access to the premises. Failure to comply with the above conditions will release INSPECTOR and its agents from any and all obligations or liability of any kind.
- The parties agree that any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be filed only in the Court having jurisdiction in the County in which the INSPECTOR has its principal place of business. In the event that CLIENT fails to prove any claims against INSPECTOR in a court of law, CLIENT agrees to pay all legal costs, expenses and fees of INSPECTOR in defending said claims. CLIENT further understands that any legal action against InterNACHI itself allegedly arising out of this Agreement or INSPECTOR’s relationship with InterNACHI must be brought only in the District Court of Boulder County, Colorado. No such action may be filed unless the Client has first provided InterNACHI with 30 days’ written notice of the nature of the claim. In any action against INSPECTOR and/or InterNACHI, CLIENT waives trial by jury.
- If any court declares any provision of this Agreement invalid, the remaining provisions will remain in effect. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties. All prior communications are merged into this Agreement, and there are no terms or conditions other than those set forth herein. No statement or promise of INSPECTOR or its agents shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by INSPECTOR. No change shall be enforceable against any party unless it is in writing and signed by the parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable by the parties and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assignees. CLIENT shall have no cause of action against INSPECTOR after one year from the date of the inspection.
- Should any provision of this Agreement require judicial interpretation, the Court shall not apply a presumption that the term shall be more strictly construed against one party or the other by reason of the rule of construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the party who prepared it.
CLIENT HAS CAREFULLY READ THE FOREGOING, AGREES TO IT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT.
CLIENT DATE
#8 The “INSPECTOR” is not obligated, nor shall he be expected to subject himself to taking unnecessary risks or to place himself in a situation which may be hazzardous or dangerous to himself or the “CLIENT’S” property. The “INSPECTOR” shall make the determination as to what constitutes a risk or dangerous situation.
Nick.
The form in the link in your original draft document is not the latest revision to the form. You link has a revision date of 09-09 (see bottom of form). The current version in effect has a revision date of 02-10. Of course, the 02-10 version is about to change as well.
Also, there is no line on the draft form for the fee for the service.
That needs to be told to the OIR and the insurance companies about those stupid useless pictures they require.
It does nothing to stop scumbags from using pictures they find on the net or straight out faking them. It is about as useful as putting our initials and the address on every page.
Only question is how do we get it thru the heads of the people in charge of this stuff.
How bout they prosecute those who are faking it and doing dishonest things instead of making the rest of us jump thru the hoops.
If I sign my name saying something then that should be enough. If it comes to it then it would help if I have pictures to show how i came to the answer but for it to be required is useless and dangerous.
I often have a representative sign inspection agreements in the event that the homeowner/client is not available to sign; sometimes realtors, sometimes family members, etc. I like to identify the client upfront in the agreement by typing in their name because sometimes their signatures are illegibly. This agreement refers to the signature to identify the “CLIENT”. I would prefer the “CLIENT” to be defined as in like older NACHI inspection agreement which also gives the address, fee and date:
The address of the property is: Fee for the home inspection is . INSPECTOR acknowledges receiving a deposit of from CLIENT.
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2011_, by and between
(hereinafter “INSPECTOR”) and (hereinafter “CLIENT”),
collectively referred to herein as “the parties.” The Parties Understand and Voluntarily Agree as follows:
…
…
Also at the bottom of the report the signature is described as CLIENT or REPRESENTATIVE:
FOR INSPECTOR CLIENT OR REPRESENTATIVE DATE
Additionally, Item 3. seems to be truncated from the similar Item 5 in the old standard NACHI agreement, and seems to be miss-worded and incomplete.
This Item 3: 3. INSPECTOR does not perform engineering, architectural, plumbing, or any other job function requiring an occupational license in the jurisdiction where the inspection is taking place.
Old NACHI Agreement Item 5: 5. INSPECTOR does not perform engineering, architectural, plumbing, or any other job function requiring an occupational license in the jurisdiction where the inspection is taking place, unless the inspector holds a valid occupational license, in which case he/she may inform the CLIENT that he/she is so licensed, and is therefore qualified to go beyond this basic home inspection, and for additional fee, perform additional inspections beyond those within the scope of the basic home inspection. Any agreement for such additional inspections shall be in a separate writing.
Not sure how to protect against this in the agreement, but I do believe there could be significant liability related to the fact that inspectors are only looking at a somewhat limited number (hardly a representative number) of locations in an attic to determine the answer to questions on the 1802 form like item 4 which wants to know what “the weakest roof to wall connection” is, Toe Nails, Clips, Single Wraps Straps, Double Wraps Straps, etc. If double straps are observed in several places and photos of the properly nailed straps are included, there is little feasible choice but to select on the form that the “weakest roof to wall connection” is a Single Wrap Strap. What if in the event of a hurricane, a section of roof blows off and they find some rafters in that area were not connected properly by the Single Wrap Straps. The insurance company and/or client may make a claim against the inspector because he didn’t let them know there were some deficiencies at some connection locations. How can the agreement protect against the fact that we can’t feasibly conduct a more comprehensive inspection of these connections?
I’m grateful to NACHI for addressing the wind mitigation agreement issue.
I often have a representative sign inspection agreements in the event that the homeowner/client is not available to sign; sometimes realtors, sometimes family members. I like to identify the client upfront in the agreement by typing in their name because sometimes their signatures are illegibly. This agreement refers to the signature to identify the “CLIENT”. I would prefer the “CLIENT” to be defined as in like older NACHI inspection agreement which also gives the address, fee and date:
The address of the property is: Fee for the home inspection is . INSPECTOR acknowledges receiving a deposit of from CLIENT.
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2011_, by and between
(hereinafter “INSPECTOR”) and (hereinafter “CLIENT”),
collectively referred to herein as “the parties.” The Parties Understand and Voluntarily Agree as follows:
…
…
Also at the bottom of the report the signature is described as CLIENT or REPRESENTATIVE:
FOR INSPECTOR CLIENT OR REPRESENTATIVE DATE
Additionally, Item 3. seems to be truncated from the similar Item 5 in the old standard NACHI agreement, and seems to be miss-worded and incomplete.
This Item 3: 3. INSPECTOR does not perform engineering, architectural, plumbing, or any other job function requiring an occupational license in the jurisdiction where the inspection is taking place.
Old NACHI Agreement Item 5: 5. INSPECTOR does not perform engineering, architectural, plumbing, or any other job function requiring an occupational license in the jurisdiction where the inspection is taking place, unless the inspector holds a valid occupational license, in which case he/she may inform the CLIENT that he/she is so licensed, and is therefore qualified to go beyond this basic home inspection, and for additional fee, perform additional inspections beyond those within the scope of the basic home inspection. Any agreement for such additional inspections shall be in a separate writing.
Not sure how to protect against this in the agreement, but I do believe there could be significant liability related to the fact that inspectors are only looking at a somewhat limited number (hardly a representative number) of locations in an attic to determine the answer to questions on the 1802 form like item 4 which wants to know what “the weakest roof to wall connection” is, Toe Nails, Clips, Single Wraps Straps, Double Wraps Straps, etc. If double straps are observed in several places and photos of the properly nailed straps are included, there is little feasible choice but to select on the form that the “weakest roof to wall connection” is a Single Wrap Strap. What if in the event of a hurricane, a section of roof blows off and they find some rafters in that area were not connected properly by the Single Wrap Straps. The insurance company and/or client may make a claim against the inspector because he didn’t let them know there were some deficiencies at some connection locations. How can the agreement protect against the fact that we can’t feasibly conduct a more comprehensive inspection of these connections?
I’m grateful to NACHI for addressing the wind mitigation agreement issue.