|
Re: TREC Etically challenged
I think there is still a long shot chance that the Attorney General’s office will determine that this is a general liability insurance requirement and not one for professional liability insurance. TREC has asked the AG for a determination about that and should get one back before September 1st.
Keep in mind that this bill came about as a result of the Sunset Commission’s review of TREC. One of the things that the Sunset Commission likes to do is create as much uniformity between the various state agencies as possible. That makes their work easier as they review all state agencies over their 12-15 year cycle.
There are many state issued licenses that require general liability insurance but no others that I know of that require professional liability insurance (E&O). I hold two other state licensed beside my inspector license and both of those have a general liability insurance requirement but no E&O requirement.
As those of you following the bill know, the wording is vague about the kind of insurance being required. I think this may have been intentional. Vague wording would serve to create some confusion when the amendment is first discovered and it did indeed do that. It also continues to serve in that capacity even now.
This kind of vagary also leaves the politician some wiggle room if it really hits the fan about E&O and would allow a plausible "Now wait a just a minute! I meant general liability all along".
Think about it and imagine how accepting we would all be at this point if it turned out to be just a general liability requirement. And how relieved we would all be that we dodged an E&O bullet. The fervor of complaint would all but vanish at that point after a collective sigh of relief.
I personally am not holding my breath for this kind of outcome but I think its still within the realm of a distant possibility.
|