http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/08/3551706/citizens-made-errors-on-inspections.html
Florida’s largest insurer Citizens admits in documents obtained by The Palm Beach Post that the state-run company and its contractors made errors in more than 1,500 inspections as part of a huge campaign that raised customer bills by more than $200 million a year.
No way! Wow, that is shocking. Do the contractors have to pay the people back the money the ripped them off?
What a mess.
Is this shocking to anyone here? This has been said over and over…NACHI can step in…
Maybe the OIR could create a re-inspection program to re-inspect the re-inspectors. Of course, none of the WCE’s or re-inspection firms should be allowed to participate in the re-re-inspection program. This program should only be open to re-re-inspection firms- not simply re-inspection firms. In all fairness, they should also require Citizens to foot the bill for the re-re-inspectors. Perhaps they could use some of that 200 million that they stole from the people.
Maybe we can re-re-re inspect…then have a board to determine the inspections to re- re-re-re affirm the re-re-re insections…
This is too damn funny!
What about the money given to the firms who did the re-inspections?
That is a pretty good deal, pay out 1/4 million for 200 million. I will take that deal everyday. Maybe if they would stop the same inept crooks form participating each time something would change. This is the definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Oh snap… John and I agree on something yet again… According to most re. Inspections I fought it was because their view was blocked. I guess they can’t use a stick… I bet they sure as hell do not crawl around looking for shinners
I must say I am stunned - not at the errors. mind you, but at that they admitted them.
You are correct John…I’ll be sending you a check for a 1/4 mil…I expect the 200 mil in a week and I’ll give you 50%! :mrgreen:
I wonder if any of the homeowners got a check? :shock:
All Home Owners got a check…a check marked, TOE NAIL…GABLE, ECT…those are the checks they got
I would say 1,500 errors is pretty damn good for 400,000 inspections.
Nice to hear someone keeping their head. You are absolutely correct. Though 1,500 errors amounts to a magnificent sum ($200,000.00) The error rate is .00375 which any of us would gladly accept in any business we were involved in. Just happens that this can ruin lives after an already life changing catastrophe.
Go back and re-read the article. You both may be incorrect in your assumptions. Your assumptions are predicated on 1500 errors based on 400,000 inspections. When in reality, a very small portion of the 400,000 total inspections were actually re-inspected. Consequently, the error rate is actually much higher.
I would venture to say that there are far more mistakes being made in the retail sector of these inspections. What this article calls a “mistake” was more than likely a verification problem of impact windows and doors. The carriers guidelines were VERY strict in this regard, which resulted in a lot of “N” selections…appears to be impact rated.
What evidence do you have to support your venture that far more mistakes are made in the retail sector as opposed to the "preferred provider"s? Wouldn’t the carriers guidelines apply to both the retail inspector as well as the preferred provider inspector? I am making the assumption that the OIR B1 1802 (latest edition) applies to both the retail inspector as well as the "preferred provider"s and that both models are required to use the same form?
I would venture to say that the whole issue may be determined by your perception of what the definition of “mistake” is. I would also venture to say that there is the perception of a mistake (among the insurance industry and preferred providers) that favors the insurance industry is simply a mistake, whereas a mistake that favors the consumer is considered as, and treated as, insurance fraud.
Because I experienced it first hand for almost 2 years. What evidence do you have that says otherwise? Unless you have worked both sides of this issue, you really don’t have a valid argument. I am not going to get into the differences here, only to say that the “preferred providers” are under the premise that all sections on the 1802 are to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt…definitive verification.
Not looking for an argument with you, but rather professional discussion based on facts and available information. You were the one that made the assertion that far more mistakes are made by retail inspectors. I did not make an assertion that errors are less on the retail side when compared to the “preferred providers”. As for a valid argument, I was not making an argument for either side of the issue, but rather asking for any valid evidence to support your assertion. With respect to your premise that all sections on the 1802 form require definitive verification, would that not be the case on the retail side as well as on the preferred provider side?
Lol, Steve, I applaud your sence of optimism, but have you seen some of the questions being asked in the Members and emergency discussion as it relates to the form? There’s your evidence…