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.
