Thread: Just thinking

From another thread that I didn't want to turn into a drift:

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

David,.......My contract says I'm doing the inspection according to ASHI and TN SOP's - and that's what I do. I think they would have a hard time taking me to court for breach of contract....
JF

The problem with our society as a whole is that it is not difficult to sue anyone over anything. The difficulty comes in defending one's self and in recovering your costs when the plaintiff does not prevail.

The problem with insurance is not that it couldn't be beneficial. It's that it is not beneficial to anyone except attorneys and Insurance companies. One marketing ploy from those companies is to try to get you to buy larger policies for "better" coverage. They will use the argument that smaller policies are frequently eaten up by attorney's fees, leaving nothing to protect against judgments. What they don't provide figures for is how much of all policies are consumed by attorney's fees. It would be interesting to see a spread sheet showing

• size of policies
• % of policy $ consumed by attorney's fees (by policy size)
• $ of policy $ consumed by attorney's fees (by policy size)
• $ value of suits filed (by policy size)
• $ paid out from settling claims without trial (to plaintiff)
• $ paid out from trial judgements (to plaintiff)
• # of claims paid that would have been small claim's court decisions
• total # of claims made
• gross profit $ and % for Ins Cos based on all Inspector policies sold and after all claims paid. This should be shown with and witout attornys fees paid out.

Without this kind of information made public, I will continue to believe that insurance is nothing more than a brilliant marketing phenomena that makes those companies and attorneys very wealthy.

It amazes and discourages me to realize that, in Texas, I can now be sued for more over a house inspection than an MD can be sued for for amputating the wrong leg, killing a patient, etc. Punative damages are now capped at $250,000 for MDs.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The requirement of having TREC turn over excesses of $600K in the recovery fund to the general fund negated the legitimacy of TREC (with rspect to Inspectors) in general and made it no more or less than a revenue source for the general treasury.

Based on 10 years reported history from TREC, they never paid out enough from the recovery fund over 10 years to use the revenue they made from the first's year's income, alone.

Similar Threads:

• Thinking about getting a sombero a
• Thinking of offering radon testing
• What were they thinking when adding a second floor
• What were they thinking?
• Thinking too hard?

Originally Posted by Thom Walker

From another thread that I didn't want to turn into a drift:

It amazes and discourages me to realize that, in Texas, I can now be sued for more over a house inspection than an MD can be sued for for amputating the wrong leg, killing a patient, etc. Punative damages are now capped at $250,000 for MDs.

Actually this is true in many states and it is not just for the medical profession. Tort Law reform has happened in many states. Actual damages is what the majority of jury trials go on. This does not include attorney or expert witness fees. I just finished a case as an EW and the amount of the lawsuit was for a little over $400,000. Emotional distress, lack of companionship, etc,etc. The jury only awarded actual damages of $90,000. Keep in mind that this does not hold true in all states, this was in North Carolina.

If we threaten to take off one of their legs, that might just prevent the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

If we threaten to take off one of their legs, that might just prevent the lawsuit.

I think that's part of New Jersey Statute.

Insurance carriers who provide E&O policies to home inspectors just may be in the top ten of public scams? As a long time EW provider I firmly believe they grow greedier by the day as it seems Gordon Gecko’s words of wisdom is their mantra.