I first heard it from an agent and I just spoke with a underwriter at Universal and he confirmed that they are no longer providing discounts to homeowners who have their mit credits on the 2 page (old) form. He stated that in order to qualify all homeowners insured through Universal will have to have it reinspected on the new 4 page form. In doing so, they think will reduce the number of guys that tried to do a quick inspect for only $75-$85 and get the prices back to $125-$150 for the legit inspectors, because it will require more time, etc. He thinks we should all be getting $150.
I asked him if it is legal for them to deny the old 2 page form and he said that their “legal experts” feel it is legal because the old form is no longer considered an “active” form. The 5 year expiration is only good for “active” forms.
He said that there is one exception and that is only for condo assoication buildings only, not individual condo unit owners.
Interesting…He told me that they aren’t allowed to give out names…yeah, the “usual suspects” that got them wrong in the first place and helped create the problem.
I just want everyone to remember if it is not visible and accessible DO NOT provide a picture. Please no pictures of marks on trusses and such. A nailing pattern is Not Visible and therefore no picture is required by the wording on the form. Stick to this so they do not try to screw us all. Nails are not usually visible either. I had a underwriter tell me they wanted a picture of a 8d nail today. I do not see prices going up but I try to get 120 to 125 when possible. Dennis is absolutely correct most people who do them for agencies or advertise on line will NOT get the job at higher prices. Good Luck To All. :mrgreen:
I have had no issues getting $115 for the wind mits. I raised that price from $100 once the new form was released.
With regards to your nail size and spacing. I have been able to easily obtain that information from “shinners” or missed nails in the attic. In the event there are very few missed nails I use a Xircom to scan (highly inaccurate reading because it picks up anything metal that is close).
Greg is right on with this one. But its only a few carriers being unreasonable. Namely State Farm. You guys should call a State Farm agent and ask them about the underwriting memo they just received.
I may have to develope another price point for State Farm customers alone.
I am just telling you the price that the guys from insurance and the net are getting. Sometimes shiners are not visible. My point is a nail in wood in not a visible item. The more you give them the more they will expect. I do keep photos of shiners but do not send them unless asked. Sometimes you can have a few shiners in a row to determine nailing pattern but I keep those just in case also… If the underwriters have all the inspectors jumping thru whatever hoop they put up the homeowners will get screwed when we cannot photograph something. My advice to all is simple and you can choose to follow it or not. Stick to exactly what the form says and offer nothing extra because if you give them an inch they will think they should always get the extra mile. Do yourself a favor and use the K.I.S.S. method when dealing with insurance people. I am just trying to give everyone advice on how to deal with these folks I hope no one is offended. Good luck. :mrgreen:
Just so I am clear, you send them, when they request it, pictures of
A) A Blatant code violation and
B) A violation of the manufacturers installation instructions?
I suggest you check with the APA and look for the guidelines pertaining to roof decking. It does not say "nail the roof decking into “thin air”!
If the roof fails, I suspect someone is going to be giving you a call, one you are not going want to answer.
As for pricing, when I did WMs, if it was a home I inspected, I don’t charge my Clients twice to look at something once. Stand alone inspections would be different.
That is how I do it “ZIRCON MT 6” and have even made a note on the form telling them that is how it is done. I believe the method is not verry accurate but it is the best tool we have at the present time.
There have been underwriters asking for nail pictures. When I see them I photograph them. I will send when requested. I use the wording on the form and explain that it is not a visible feature and therefore does not need a photo. I would rather send them a picture of a shiner than have them say the report is not complete. :mrgreen:
My response to this below:
Just so I am clear, you send them, when they request it, pictures of
A) A Blatant code violation and
B) A violation of the manufacturers installation instructions?
I suggest you check with the APA and look for the guidelines pertaining to roof decking. It does not say "nail the roof decking into “thin air”!
If the roof fails, I suspect someone is going to be giving you a call, one you are not going want to answer.
Just showing a shiner is not a Blatant code violation. There have been underwriters that want a picture of a shiner with a ruler next to it to determine the length. I am currently not doing that but if that is what they start demanding what choice will I have? As I stated before I believe anyone doing these should say it is not visible or accessible and try to leave it at that.
Just a thought. I would not give them more than they ask for. I think if we stick to the wording of the form and only photograph what is visible we are better off. The less info we give them to use against us if they ever come after us the better. Kind of like not taking the sobriety test if they try to get you for a D.U.I. The smaller amount of evidence the insurance people have the better off we are. I in no way condone driving while intoxicated and anyone who does should be locked up. Just for the record I have not had problems yet officially about what I have been turning in. I have not been turning in photos of nail length, deck thickness, patterns on trussed, swr, wall construction. Here is a thought to those worried. Take the photos if you want but do not send them unless a underwriter or someone contacts you and wants it. Then complain and say you do not agree but you will send it anyway. The more we do for them the MORE they WILL want. Let’s try to keep it as simple as possible. Anyone who wants can contact me any time to discuss anything. I have talked to many of you on the phone and it is good to know what your fellow inspectors are doing and what problems they are having. I am more than willing to help anyone or discuss any problem any of you are having. Good luck to all.
I believe if you indicate a homeowner is elgible for an item that will provide discount you are required to provide photo documentation. I understand your stance but I believe you are going to cause yourself more work in the long run by not providing the supporting photos. If the item is not visible, then it cannot be verified (Docs are the exception). And the inspector will need to mark the appropriate box.
I did a wind mitigation inspection today for a house that had a roof no older than 4 or 5 years. No docs, no record of permmiting so I had to mark “unknown or undetermined”.
In my opinion you would be better off sending the photos. Just offering my two cents.
Justin,
I agree with unknown being unknown-ALWAYS. You are welcome to do you reports how you feel will help you and your client the best. I am only suggesting that when people start sending photos of marks on trusses and shiners they are getting the people used to receiving that information. My position is that the form clearly states one photo of each existence of each visible and accessible construction or mitigation attribute. If it is not VISIBLE or ACCESSIBLE do not include a photo of something that may or may not represent what is there. " in the trusses". The metal detector only says that there is metal there putting marks and taking a photo of it and saying it is the nailing pattern could definitely get you into trouble if it is not the nailing pattern. I have come to believe with Insurance companies that Less is better and I believe you should give no more than the form requires. To give more sets a president and lets them think you are following the form and that others should do it as well. I have done many of the new forms as I am describing and have not YET had a problem. I will let everyone know if I do. Please do not feel I am trying to tell you what to do. It is only my opinion of how we should handle the forms and the underwriters. Good luck. :mrgreen:
I send a photo for every item that is to be ‘verifed’. Insurance companies are tried of giving discounts for unpermitted/unlicensed work, possible installed with substandard material and workmanship.
On a side note, I amazed at the poor info I’m seeing from roofing contractors on their contracts. No info about: size nails, nailed at, #tar paper, overlaped at, finished with…
If a client complains, I tell them to contact their roofing contractor and ask for a letter on their letterhead detailing the nailing pattern they utilized during the reroof.
Please read what I wrote above in response to Justin. I believe you are hurting your self in the long run if you give them more than they ask. They will then make the next form even more difficult to prove with more photos required. My advice is if it is visible photograph it if not Don’t. When you photograph marks on trusses and say they aree 8d nails spaced every 6 inches you MAY turn out to be wrong. :mrgreen:
I only provide credit for what I can phisically verify. I look at every rating as something I may be required to defend. Therefore, a photo accompanies any rating other than unknown/unidentified.
I have a zircon. I do not trust it. It picks up all metal and can not comfortably be relied upon to differentiate between an 8 penny nail and shingle nails.
It appears that we agree then. Check out the note I put on the form to cover my but on the nailing pattern issue. :mrgreen: I also had this note on the old form and have submitted hundreds of them and never once caught any grief or even had a comment about it.
