We did a wind last yr (old form)… Client was reinspected my mueller. I had the frame 30 and masonry 70… They cleint was reinspected last month. They say 52 wood and 48 masonry. Insurance is going up $500. Everything else dead on. I feel I am dead on with the old form as well. Question… I have never had to fight one- The cleint insurance says it appears we are right… But with the old form not calling this out… What direction should I go. Would it be adviseable to have client have another inspection outside of mine?
With the new mit form not having a question for this it would probably be best to let the agent decide what % may be frame vs. masonry. They will be the ones fighting Citizens and dealing with Citizens underwriting. Of course you can advise them on why you chose 30/70 with some sketches, etc. Gable end walls are considered frame FYI.
A house I just did, Mueller said it was 100% frame. When I spoke with them and told them most of the without doing the calculations, most of the home is concrete block, the rep from Mueller continued to stand by her inspector. I told her to send him out to the home and I would take his head and smash it against the walls in a few areas and we should be able to tell if it is CBS…a much better method than using the MT-6, pictured in his report.
No, she wouldn’t let me talk to the inspector, it is why I made the remark I did. He also said that the roof to wall connection was blocked by insulation. All he had to do was crawl into the attic, go two trusses over, and there was a soffit vent, with no insulation in the way, and take the picture.
It would appear, these inspectors are operating under different rules than some of us. I do everything I can to get all of the pictures so I can accurately back up the answers on the form. If there is no access to the attic, then there are still ways to get the data:
It is why I include permit information, actual permits, NOA numbers, the actual NOA in some instances, code references, anything else I think will be helpful.
Here is an example: Did an inspection in Coconut Creek. Home built in 1996 (11/17/1996 permit date). I couldn’t find any “shiners”…err…code violations, but I know what the code was when the home was built. Underwriter said they needed a picture of the “shiner”…err…code violation.
They got the following instead:
I’m guessing the wall construction type is not so much for the mitigation as for the the insurers liability/risk analysis. Don’t know if they assign any credits but, they probably have a scale they use to determine how much the clients premium will be.
Wall construction was never there to give people a discount, it was on the old form for insurers to verify what the client had. Anything over 33% wood frame would increase the rate due to fire risk/more damage caused by a fire. Masonry homes only got a “discount” by not having to pay the higher premiums that wood frame homes did and still do pay.
Edit: this is what I have deduced from my experience with insurance inspections, no idea if its true.
2nd edit… really wish we had some actual underwriters and insurance agents on this message board to lend some insight.
Does anyone find it interesting or unusual that an insurance company can have the client pay for a wind mitigation inspection and then require the inspector to give them additional information that is not on the state designated form? It seems like the inspector would be working for free for the insurance company to collect additional data that the client (homeowner) is not paying for?
At best this is mental masterbation, you are losing my respect everytime I read this crap. Bert where the **** ( what planet) are you living. You disappoint me, not returning calls , hey asshole remenber your dads house.
That is exactly what it is used for…It has NADA to do with the Windstorm portion of premium, thus nothing to do with the 1802 Form. State Farm would take a house with 1% frame construction reported on old Wind Mit Form and use the “Default to Weakest Link” method to screw their clients on the Liability/Risk Analysis. There is no benefit or requirement to providing this info to them unless you are being retained specifically for that purpose.