Wind mitigation

I ran a crossed a wind MIT that was performed in 2009 on a 1996 home. The general contractor inspector marked home was built to 2001 building code. Is this possible? No proof was provided.

What “proof” would you accept that the structure built in 1996 meets the 2001 FBC?
The 2001 FBC wasn’t adopted until March 2002.

Is it possible?

Is it verifiable?
Not easily, and not to me.


Hi Dom,
Did you mean we can show that it is and mark A or that it is possible, which I believe as some homes are brick .,@&$ houses but built before 2001. Btw, I was mistaken, he marked the roof as meeting the 2001 code. There isn’t even a question about the home being built to 2001 code on the form he used in 2009. Thanks for your feedback.

To your original question, possible, maybe. Probable, not so much.

The point is moot anyway as it is more than five years from when it was inspected and it will have to be done on a newer form.

A few things must be considered here, the first being the form asks “built in compliance with” not “built during the time of”. A division 1 contractors license is one highest licenses in our industry and carries a lot of weight with it.

Contractor, architect, building inspector, and engineer mitigation training is VERY different than the training home inspectors get…VERY DIFFERENT! The 2001 FBC was the 1997 Standard Building Code so they would be essentially the same in the way of mitigation techniques as many counties adopted SSTD-10 and SSTD-12 before the 2001 FBC adoption. This would make them literally 2001 FBC “complaint”, which is what the form asks. Actually, the wind speeds used pre-FBC were stronger in some cases as the method of determining fast-mile vs. sustained gust changed. A home built pre-FBC could be stronger than the FBC as it was and is only a “minimum”.

If you cannot determine, or are not educated enough (not an insult), you should pass the job of providing the form on to an engineer or other higher license. This is not happening and it’s about to get real dicey. The statement of “that’s not what I was taught” just isn’t going to fly when your butts gets hung out to dry…

Here’s a question:

Specifically, what would be the difference between a home built to the 1997 Standard Building Code in Palm Beach County (using PBC as an example as they adopted SSTD-10 in 1994) that had shutters put over the glazed openings and a home built to the 2001 FBC in that same county?

What would be the difference between the two mitigation wise?

Thanks for the feedback. This is a very interesting dilemma and important to our clients as it can cost them$. I just want to get it right for them. I was a general contractor in Michigan which does me no good in Florida. It seems that I have the common sense to know when a home is built to a higher standard even when a code doesn’t apply because of a date. It would be good information to have available in out inspector training, which it is not, on how to determine if the home is built to the 2001 code. Ie what criteria we should look for, rather than trying to become a general contractor just to do a wind mitigation. The darn things are only worth between $75-100 in this area as people aren’t willing to pay more because there are guys doing them so cheap. Heck, after all we are just trying to make a living too. If I held a GC or engineering license, I wouldn’t even bother with wind mitigation on the residential level. Not worth doing. This home is CBS with reinforced concrete walls, a concrete tile roof over tin tab mop down underlayment. Is it really that hard to determine if it is 2001 code compliant. I just want to do right by my clients. My home is the same and my inspector wrote it as C, not 2001 compliant. Crazy that so many don’t really know what the answer is. Maybe it’s just not clear. We are not stupid, just ignorant or not well informed. Thanks guys for the help, or the confusion, not sure which it is. Maybe Internachi can help with this and make it easy to verify and actually make a living doing wind Mits. I took the new class on wind Mits and it doesn’t even mention it.

This isn’t in reference to you Joe, but you must see the irony here.

An HI can’t confirm or deny a structure built pre-2001 meets the FBC, but has no problem verifying as such just because of the permit date…oh sweet irony…

New house today. Never lived in. Air handler missing condensate trap, condensate terminated at 5 inches from the wall, dining room not AFCI protected, misising screws in window frames, cracked impact rated glass, window frams not sealed, and main shut off valve not working. Should A on question #1 because it was pemitted and everything was signed off on. Lets hear what you guys would do. I know what I would do .

I believe most would agree that the form is somewhat vague and open to subjective interpretation.

We run into conditions that are not exactly black and white.

I believe that the most helpful improvement would be clear guidelines. Lots of examples of items that do not exactly fit… with suggested answers.

It would be great if the OIR would do it but I do not believe that will happen. A credible organization may be able to though…NACHI maybe… as an add-on to the course.
If not…maybe a handful of carefully chosen people that do not have a potential conflict of interest could do it.

The question at hand falls in to one of those areas in my opinion. If there was a guideline that stated that a valid permit would suffice as proof of compliance… that would solve the issue. Of course the exception would be any safety item that was inexplicably missed.

Just some thoughts

That’s exactly what I was trying to do at the commission meeting…you see how I was portrayed here when I did that? I wanted the OIR to set standards, it’s not going to happen.

Getting a statement that a permit is verification of compliance is never going to happen, it would then expose the state liable to any structure that sustained damages during a storm but had been inspected and signed off by the building inspector.

This is what I keep telling you guys, if the building inspector won’t take liability for inspecting it, why on earth would you by signing a form that states “built in compliance with”? You would have to be out of your mind, you now own that structure…

Let 'em hire the $75 guy when I say C & they shoot the messenger. Sounds like a Lennar product.
The condensate line was insulated??

While you are looking into all this Wind Mitigation stuff here is a question…the 1802 asks for permit “application date” not date roof was installed, not date permit was closed, not the date it was inspected, “the application date”. So what stops a guy from pulling a permit, even a homeowners permit and never putting on a roof. Along comes the HI that doesn’t know any better and fills out the 1802 with “application date”. Did he get a new roof in the eyes of the insurance company? I know what you are thinking…it probably would not have new nail pattern and such…OK…fast forward 5 years, same idea, this time roof “was” done in 2008 and needs a new roof again. The house has new nail pattern, clips, straps what have you, and an old roof with newer “application date”, now what?
I bring this up because this very thing happen to me. Buyer order us to do the home inspection and wind mitigation. Owner pulled a permit for the roof and sent it to listing agent. The home was put on the market advertising it had a new roof. Buyer was buying the home based on the fact that there was a new roof. I got to the home and looked at the roof and said this roof is no way new. It had been patched and repaired, rotted sheathing in attic, etc. The seller/flipper flipped…told me I was out of line for not filling out the form stating it had a new roof. His buddy the roofer said all he needed to do was pull a permit and get an application date. So now what?

A permit is not valid if it’s not finaled/completed. Citizens Ins accepts a valid permit as verification of 1802 attributes (if properly described)…it’s in their own guidelines.

Someone has worked on it, several instructors have reviewed it. There is a plan to have it reviewed by some of the underwriting/training departments so it can be a definitive answer. We all just want correct answers.

I will keep everyone apprised of the developments.

I would be willing to bet if one of my haters :slight_smile: had the time they could search everything I ever said around here and they would see that has been my friggen them song :smiley: from the beginning and I believe it would save everyone involved except those who are supposed to be in charge much time and money.

I have always said " All we need is the **O.I.R. **Office of Insurance REGULATION". to simply take charge of the forms they create.

I and many others have asked their advice about the forms they create many times and I do not believe anyone ever got a useful answer.


  1. Completely tear apart the current O.I R. down to the folks who lock up at night.

  2. Hire a completely new staff of people who have actual field experience and not just a degrees in something irrelevant to real life insurance and construction methods.

  3. When a form is created have a very specific manual compiled that makes things completely black and white. Make it so ANYONE can understand it “plain English”.

  4. If an inspector a homeowner or anyone else for that matter has a question about the form or their situations there MUST be at the minimum a daily monitored email form of communication where questions can be sent and definite answers be given and emailed at the time that can be used for the report.

  5. Have a call line open between “normal call line hrs / NOT 24/7” where the same thing can be done for those homeowners who and not very good at computers or inspectors who wanted to actually SPEAK to a living person and get a DEFINITE answer.

I believe that if that would be done it would solve the problems that all involved have to deal with.

The O.I.R should actually do what their name implies :slight_smile:


Citizens accepts docs ie permits, plans, ect. In leu of 1802 for proof of code compliance, fbc roof, rda, rtwa, construction type, and opening protection.

Sounds like all that is necessary here is an expert legal opinion.
I personally do not believe that we are responsible to certify that the building was built to code standards…only…simply…what code was applicable for the structures design.

I believe that the OIR is only concerned (On the form) with the code that would have applied for the structure. All are aware that the building departments are not liable for their errors and omissions…and…mitigation inspectors would not have had the opportunity to inspect during construction.

That (Legal opinion for the first item) would be a great start for a program that would be a guideline backed by INACHI.

You all should listen to Mr Sheppard’s presentation.

He has some great thoughts but some are in left field(in my opinion). My issue with him is his attitude towards home inspectors.

You can go through it here:

There is also some easy listening clips.

Food for thought, He states he does not do wind mits.

And just like that we have come full circle, the question was asked “has the wind mitigation program gotten better since 2010”? Well, listen to the presentation and you tell me?

Many home inspectors know me and a few are my good friends, some are the best home inspectors is the business, Tom Glynn, Jeff Hooper, Jerry Peck, and many others. There are quite a few people on this forum that argue with me here and we get along great at the conferences…just not John. He promotes a lower level of inspections that makes us all look inept as an industry. He is behind the curve with his presentation and is teaching failed practices that reduce our worth and set us up for failure. And no, the form is not being produced at a 90% accuracy rate as implied…flip those numbers.

Everyone at the presentation was literally speechless when they saw the types of things that do not get inspected or mentioned in the 1802…speechless. That is a big big issue we need to change…and we start with not listening to individuals who set that up…like john.

I have a question for John, were you even in construction in the 1980’s and 90’s? Or was it all just schooling starting in the 2000’s? While some of us have a background in construction, others do not…

Food for thought, John is teaching each and every one of you the exact same methods and practices that wiped out the MSFH program…drink that in.