Re-inspecting a re-inspection

[FONT=Times New Roman]I am working on a windmit… Original inspection was done by someone else. Then property was re-inspected by “Inspection Depot” for Citizens in January 2013. I did inspection this morning and was given a copy of Inspection Depot report. This citizens form looks a little different than my forms. The forms I use is **OIR-B1-1802 (Rev. 01/12) **Adopted by Rule 69O-170.0155
The forms that the Inspection Depot inspector used is a **OIR-B1-1802 (Rev. 02/10) **Adopted by Rule 69O-170.0155
Is my form outdated or is his form outdated? (Rev. 01/02) Does that mean revised on? [/FONT]

The 1/12 form is the proper form. His form is improper.

The form used for the ID reinspection is proprietary for the CIOP program and a valid form (same data). If you are doing another WM for the same policyholder, you may hit resistance on trying to override the reinspection unless it is for a different policy.

The new form, at least the one Mueller uses, is dated 1/12.
I just looked at one I acquired when I did a re-inspection.
It has a wall construction type page and a comparison page.

Well, maybe it was just ID that changed the revision date, don’t know, never noticed it. Citizen’s never took out the wall construction question for reinspections when the form changed in 2/12. They got a lot of premium changes out of that one, including my own house. I had upgraded the opening protection, but got dinged on 40% frame. My premium went up even though the WM showed more discounts.

Sorry, did not notice that the OP was for a 2/10 form date. That only means that the reinspection was done before 02/01/2012 on the old form. Reinspections were done on the new form starting 02/01/2012.

[FONT=Arial]Hey guys, sorry to disappear it’s been a long day and I had no time to check in. Thanks for all the great info. very informative.
I was a little confused because on page 2 question 4 of re-inspection. “Roof to Wall Attachment”: the re-inspector put “Other” and explained straps were present with 2 nails on front face and 1 nail on back face. As if straps were not provided with enough nails. But what I have read is that its fine with 3 nails total 2 on front one on back!?! Why did he mark this as “other”? Did he make an error or am I missing something? Thanks again for the help. You guys have helped me several times. I appreciate it.[/FONT]

He is using the wrong form.
On the new form, that mistake was corrected. Two nails on the front and one on the back is a single wrap.
Tell him to fill out the report on the proper form.

That’s what I thought! Thanks Eric, you’re the man!
I see you on almost all threads providing us newbie’s with great information.
Without these threads I and many others would be totally lost. I don’t post a lot because I can usually find the answer to my question in a previous thread. I always receive the most valuable information from your responses. So thank you for voluntarily taking the time to help others.

The RTW selection of “other” on the reinspection was protocol at the time (old form). Wasn’t just the reinspectors, retail inspectors were doing the same thing. This is easily remedied by submitting the new form with notation about this. Citizens will honor it.

I think I just said that! :slight_smile:

The truth is, it was wrong and got changed due to the study by Simpson, to what it should have been all along. I think I have the form with the proposed change on it and the study number…somewhere around here.