Results 1 to 48 of 48
  1. #1
    Richard Stanley's Avatar
    Richard Stanley Guest

    Default No PIA requirement

    Elite MGA Home Inspector E&O Insurance

  2. #2
    Aaron Miller's Avatar
    Aaron Miller Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Stanley View Post
    Does anyone know of E & O insurance that does NOT require a pre inspection agreement.
    No, and why would you want to work without an agreement?


  3. #3
    Richard Stanley's Avatar
    Richard Stanley Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    1. Never have used one.
    2. From what I have heard/read they are a waste of time/effort and a pain in the ass to get signed in some instances.
    3. A few thousand inspections and no problems.
    4. Current procedure - call from client, do inspection, get paid. - end of story.
    5. I think they are bullshit and useless. The only way I want to use one is if it is mandated by law, and only then if I decide to continue doing HIs.
    I don't have to do a damned thing, except play golf, but, I enjoy doing inspections.
    6. If I find a way not to use them, I will do that.

    Last edited by Richard Stanley; 08-15-2007 at 07:40 AM. Reason: wanted to

  4. #4

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Almost no insurance carrier is going to insure you without a signed agreement. You're playing with fire by not using one regardless of how many inspections you've done with no issue.

    The purpose of is to clearly explain the scope of your inspection but also explain what your inspection ISN'T. And it's your first line of defense in the event that you get sued.

    Everyone these days has email and/or a fax machine.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    613

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    If I stay in this and if I get the Ins., the agreement will have to come from the insurance carrier. I will not play the game of them excluding coverage of an incident because my agreement had a flaw. They will provide it or preapprove one.

    The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    - Paul Fix

  6. #6

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Thom Walker View Post
    If I stay in this and if I get the Ins., the agreement will have to come from the insurance carrier. I will not play the game of them excluding coverage of an incident because my agreement had a flaw. They will provide it or preapprove one.
    We require that all inspectors submit a copy of their Pre-Inspection Agreement with the application for insurance. If we see any glaring issues, then we will make suggestions. A PIA is something you and your attorney should draft up, not the insurance company.


  7. #7

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritz Kelly View Post
    I haven't heard of one. If you have never had and don't anticipate any problems, why look for insurance?
    For the same reasons people carry health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, etc., etc.

    I don't anticipate any health problems, but unfortunately I'm not able to predict the future and therefore make the intelligent decision to protect myself from going bankrupt in the event that I encounter any health issues.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    613

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    We require that all inspectors submit a copy of their Pre-Inspection Agreement with the application for insurance. If we see any glaring issues, then we will make suggestions. A PIA is something you and your attorney should draft up, not the insurance company.
    Don't take this personally, Ben. I'm sure you're a perfectly decent human being.

    The audacity of the insurance industry goes beyond anything I could possibly express. The only reason your company or any other insurance company wouldn't draft a preapproved agreement, industry specific, State specific, is that then there would be no opportunity to dispute its validity later.

    I'm so sick of the power team of insurance and trial attorneys in this Country that I could just barf. You have created a Nation of fear and my generation has allowed it. What a legacy for my children. I am ashamed.

    The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    - Paul Fix

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    I changed to BRP "Business Risk Partners" (better coverage at a lower price) from FREA this year when FREA made their bed with Nicks & his CMI club, they did not ask for one.

    I really don't know if they require one or not. My state requires it, so it does not impact me anyway.

    Truth be known, when it comes to the point that you screwed up a contract won't save your butt. It might help to deflect some of the crap before it hits the fan, but that is about all they will do. Three weeks ago I watched a judge toss out a contract on a trial that I was an EW on trying to defend a home inspector. Case was settled three hours later!

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  10. #10
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Hey Scott,

    How will BRP know when you have made a mistake if they haven't seen your PIA? How will they know when to trigger coverage? I'm interested in knowing, not judging your choice of carriers. All of the carriers I work with require a PIA and they review it prior to issuing the insurance.

    Most carriers include the PIA as part of your file when they issue your insurance, it is what they have to use to judge whether coverage applies.


  11. #11
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    [QUOTE=Thom Walker;16492]

    The only reason your company or any other insurance company wouldn't draft a preapproved agreement, industry specific, State specific, is that then there would be no opportunity to dispute its validity later.

    QUOTE]

    Thom,
    I think insurance companies don't issue agreements because they don't know what HIs do. It's better that HIs and their associations draw up the agreements and the insurance company chooses to insure you when or if you fail to perform those duties in your own agreement.

    Have not seen this posted before, but has anyone been flat out denied coverage by their carrier?


  12. #12

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    [QUOTE=Kevin Healy;16565]
    Quote Originally Posted by Thom Walker View Post

    The only reason your company or any other insurance company wouldn't draft a preapproved agreement, industry specific, State specific, is that then there would be no opportunity to dispute its validity later.

    QUOTE]

    Thom,
    I think insurance companies don't issue agreements because they don't know what HIs do. It's better that HIs and their associations draw up the agreements and the insurance company chooses to insure you when or if you fail to perform those duties in your own agreement.

    Have not seen this posted before, but has anyone been flat out denied coverage by their carrier?
    I agree with Kevin. Using an association endorsed PIA is probably the best route to take.


  13. #13

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Thom Walker View Post
    Don't take this personally, Ben. I'm sure you're a perfectly decent human being.

    The audacity of the insurance industry goes beyond anything I could possibly express. The only reason your company or any other insurance company wouldn't draft a preapproved agreement, industry specific, State specific, is that then there would be no opportunity to dispute its validity later.

    I'm so sick of the power team of insurance and trial attorneys in this Country that I could just barf. You have created a Nation of fear and my generation has allowed it. What a legacy for my children. I am ashamed.
    Thom, I don't take it personally as I don't think you're taking a shot at my character as a person. I'm not so sure the insurance companies are to blame as much as the lawyers. This goes for alot of different industries. Sue happy attorneys and frivilous lawsuits are a detriment to insurance premiums.


  14. #14
    Richard Rushing's Avatar
    Richard Rushing Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    Thom, I don't take it personally as I don't think you're taking a shot at my character as a person. I'm not so sure the insurance companies are to blame as much as the lawyers. This goes for alot of different industries. Sue happy attorneys and frivilous lawsuits are a detriment to insurance premiums.

    Ben, but aren't the in-sur-ance providers equally to blame. These folks (the carriers) are so running scared at the prospect of litigation that the carriers will settle--EVEN IF THE INSPECTOR HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!

    Now, that's just wrong!!

    When E&O becomes mandatory, the ONLY folks who benefit from it are the (see photo):

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images

  15. #15
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    "are so running scared at the prospect of litigation that the carriers will settle"

    Here is a little case study that we performed in our office.
    HI performs a perfect Home Inspection, but he is still sued for $10,000 to repair.
    Hi informs his E&O Carrier. If Carrier Settles, as they currently do, the total expense paid will be about $13-15,000, to pay for all the lawyer fees and adjusters and the claimants lawyer fees. That is just the cost to issue the paperwork to settle.
    If they litigate- (Carriers Cost) at 350-400/hr for a Lawyer, Claims Adjuster 120-200/hr, Expert Witnesses 75-125/Hr, plus documentation fees, Court/Arbitration Costs ($1000-2500).
    2 Days Prep for Arbitration 16Hrs- Lawyer- $5600
    2 Days claims adjusting- $2400
    2 Days EW at trial and prep - $1200
    Arbitration Fees(usually paid by defendant) - $1500
    Minimum Total - $10,700
    Remember they only collected $2500 in premium from the Home Inspector.
    and they might lose and still have to pay equal costs to the defense counsel and the $10,000 claim.

    And this was as cheap as we could get it. It's better to settle and minimize the risk of losing, Ironicly, settling claims keeps your premium lower.


  16. #16

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Rushing View Post
    Ben, but aren't the in-sur-ance providers equally to blame. These folks (the carriers) are so running scared at the prospect of litigation that the carriers will settle--EVEN IF THE INSPECTOR HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!

    Now, that's just wrong!!

    When E&O becomes mandatory, the ONLY folks who benefit from it are the (see photo):
    In the eyes of an insurance carrier, spending $30,000 to prove that you have done nothing wrong is not a financially good move when they can settle for $1,500. Is it fair? Depends on who you ask I guess. I think it's safe to say that if the insurance carrier went to trial with every claim that was filed, the rates would be astronomical.

    I am using arbitrary numbers above and I'm not saying I agree with what the insurance company does. Keep in mind, I work for an Association which provides E&O as a membership benefit. And this is an issue that ALL insurance providers deal with, not just FREA's carrier.


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Healy View Post
    Hey Scott,

    How will BRP know when you have made a mistake if they haven't seen your PIA? How will they know when to trigger coverage?
    Having a pre inspection agreement is not going to tell the carrier if you make a mistake. You, the insured have to tell them when you screw up and are called on the rug for doing it. This is when they get involved.

    I'm interested in knowing, not judging your choice of carriers. All of the carriers I work with require a PIA and they review it prior to issuing the insurance.
    How many do you work with? My state requires a pre inspection agreement, this could be why BRP did not ask me about it.

    Most carriers include the PIA as part of your file when they issue your insurance, it is what they have to use to judge whether coverage applies.
    Yes, it is used as a tool to keep from paying out. They all want the limit of liability clause, and this is a joke. The limit of liability clause is not allowed in many states. It has been defeated many, many times in the past few years.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    In the eyes of an insurance carrier, spending $30,000 to prove that you have done nothing wrong is not a financially good move when they can settle for $1,500. Is it fair? Depends on who you ask I guess. I think it's safe to say that if the insurance carrier went to trial with every claim that was filed, the rates would be astronomical.

    I am using arbitrary numbers above and I'm not saying I agree with what the insurance company does. Keep in mind, I work for an Association which provides E&O as a membership benefit. And this is an issue that ALL insurance providers deal with, not just FREA's carrier.
    One good reason we should all have a $5,000 deductible. Let the inspector handle everything under that and go on with life.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  19. #19

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    "Yes, it is used as a tool to keep from paying out. They all want the limit of liability clause, and this is a joke. The limit of liability clause is not allowed in many states. It has been defeated many, many times in the past few years."

    All want limit of liability clause??? Says who?


  20. #20

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    One good reason we should all have a $5,000 deductible. Let the inspector handle everything under that and go on with life.
    Scott,

    Please explain your rationale for a $5,000 deductible as opposed to a $2,500, $1,500, or dare I say $1,000.

    One of the reasons why you don't find many insurers who are willing to offer a high deductible like that is because they don't want to act as a collection agency. Usually the carrier fronts the deductible and invoices the insured as you know.


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    Scott,

    Please explain your rationale for a $5,000 deductible as opposed to a $2,500, $1,500, or dare I say $1,000.

    One of the reasons why you don't find many insurers who are willing to offer a high deductible like that is because they don't want to act as a collection agency. Usually the carrier fronts the deductible and invoices the insured as you know.
    Well for starters a higher deductible will or should equal lower premiums. Another view is if you have a higher deductible you are more likely to take care of the small problems on your own without involving the insurance company. Pay for that plumber to fix the toilet that is leaking or pay to replace that French Door that is leaking and rotting. Simple things like this should be taken care of by the inspector.

    The lower deductible can also have an adverse action. Inspectors know that they have a low deductible so it's not a big deal to do a sloppy inspection and if you have a problem the insurance company will bail you out.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    "Yes, it is used as a tool to keep from paying out. They all want the limit of liability clause, and this is a joke. The limit of liability clause is not allowed in many states. It has been defeated many, many times in the past few years."

    All want limit of liability clause??? Says who?
    Doesn't FREA require a "Limit of Liability" clause in the pre inspection agreement?

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  23. #23

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    Well for starters a higher deductible will or should equal lower premiums. Another view is if you have a higher deductible you are more likely to take care of the small problems on your own without involving the insurance company. Pay for that plumber to fix the toilet that is leaking or pay to replace that French Door that is leaking and rotting. Simple things like this should be taken care of by the inspector.

    The lower deductible can also have an adverse action. Inspectors know that they have a low deductible so it's not a big deal to do a sloppy inspection and if you have a problem the insurance company will bail you out.
    I agree with you. However there are situations where doing things yourself, not involving the insurance company, can potentially land you in hot water. Nigel actually wrote a good article in the Communicator that sort of relates to this subject (http://communicatormagazine.com/page147.aspx). Please note that the name of the inspector is merely coincidence :-)

    Most insurance companies require you to report any and all claims but of course many inspectors will try to fix the small things on their own. Especially if the cost is less than the deductible. But here's something to think about: often times, especially in states where insurance is required, Inspectors feel as if it puts a target on their back and anticipate claims on that basis. If there's any truth to that, do you want a high deductible? I'm not saying I agree one way or another, just food for thought.

    I also agree about the lower deductible to an extent. But I would hope that an inspector would take enough pride in his/her work and not use insurance as a bank account so-to-speak.

    Last edited by Ben Garrison; 08-25-2007 at 03:56 PM.

  24. #24

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    Doesn't FREA require a "Limit of Liability" clause in the pre inspection agreement?
    No, FREA does not require a "Limit of Liability" clause. In some states those clauses are illegal actually. I've seen PIA's where the inspector has limited his/her liability to the amount of his/her deductible. Much better than limiting liability to the cost of the inspection. That probably won't hold up.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    No, FREA does not require a "Limit of Liability" clause. In some states those clauses are illegal actually. I've seen PIA's where the inspector has limited his/her liability to the amount of his/her deductible. Much better than limiting liability to the cost of the inspection. That probably won't hold up.
    Well this must have changed in the past couple of years, because they use to require it at one time. This must have been before you joined.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    York SC Licensed in NC and SC
    Posts
    596

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Garrison View Post
    No, FREA does not require a "Limit of Liability" clause. In some states those clauses are illegal actually. I've seen PIA's where the inspector has limited his/her liability to the amount of his/her deductible. Much better than limiting liability to the cost of the inspection. That probably won't hold up.

    Ben, do you know if NC or SC allows the limit of liability of clauses?

    Anyone know which states do not allow it?


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Garland, TX
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Ben,

    No need to bracket or punctuate links, they won't open properly, just paste with spacing on either side

    blah, blah, blah http://communicatormagazine.com/page147.aspx blah, blah, blah

    badair http://www.adairinspection.com Garland, TX 75042 TREC # 4563
    Commercial-Residential-Construction-EIFS-Infrared Thermography
    life is the random lottery of events followed by numerous narrow escapes

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Garland, TX
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritz Kelly View Post
    I have to say, the link that appears every time I type "insurance" is realy irritating.
    If you spell it correctly, this won't happen.

    IN$URANCE

    badair http://www.adairinspection.com Garland, TX 75042 TREC # 4563
    Commercial-Residential-Construction-EIFS-Infrared Thermography
    life is the random lottery of events followed by numerous narrow escapes

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce King View Post
    Ben, do you know if NC or SC allows the limit of liability of clauses?

    Anyone know which states do not allow it?
    Not to answer for Ben; The last time I looked this up it was only a handful of states the actually had it written in their license law outlawing it. The problem is when and if it ever gets to the point of your contract being challenged in a lawsuit or court of law. Case law has been established I know in MS, AL, OK and VA. that makes a limit of liability clause null and void. I'm sure it has been successfully challenged in many more states.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  30. #30

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    I don't know specifically, state by state. According to an attorney I know, Pennsylvania, for example, does allow them, provided they are clearly worded and easily understood. However, under the PA Home Inspection Law, they are invalid against claims of gross negligence. Gross negligence is a very high standard, something like reckless indifference. On the other hand, New Jersey, does not allow them at all. Neighboring states obviously.


  31. #31
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Scott,

    Haven't seen a limit of liability clause for some years. It was not well recieved and subsequently stomped in the courts. If you can't enforce it the carriers and associations remove the clauses.

    To answer your question, I work with 4 different carriers to place my clients E&O, I primarily write with 1 company because the pricing/coverage is good, but it's nice to have several options when I don't like a particular quote. I always shop with more than one carrier though.


  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Healy View Post
    Scott,

    Haven't seen a limit of liability clause for some years. It was not well recieved and subsequently stomped in the courts. If you can't enforce it the carriers and associations remove the clauses.

    To answer your question, I work with 4 different carriers to place my clients E&O, I primarily write with 1 company because the pricing/coverage is good, but it's nice to have several options when I don't like a particular quote. I always shop with more than one carrier though.
    Thanks Kevin.

    Question, do you know how many carriers write E&O coverage for home inspectors.

    I know of AIG; Lloyd's and I have just heard of State Farm writing E&O coverage.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  33. #33
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    On thedeductible front,

    If you are offered a higher deductible you should get a price break. You'd be amazed how cheap your E&O would be if you chose a $10,000 deductible. i typically recommend $5,000 becuase it seems to be the right balance for HIs.

    I concur with Ben on the "handling it yourself" aspect of the business, you had better be sure that you can fix things if you are not going to notify your carrier. Have a lawyer draw up a letter that waives the clients right to sue if you pay for it yourself. But if there is any doubt get teh carrier involved, and early, if you don't they will not defend you or pay. It's a slippery slope. Better to pay higher premiums from a claim than lose your business over a suit.

    Kevin


  34. #34
    Russel Ray's Avatar
    Russel Ray Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    A (former) CREIA inspector friend of mine went through a lawsuit filed in August 2003. He used the CREIA inspection contract but did not carry E&O insurance. The lawsuit was one of those broadcast lawsuits, and he came to me seeking advice. I gave him the number for my attorney, which he wound up using. I had the privilege of seeing how the lawsuit progressed.

    In reading through the CREIA inspector's report, and then the complaint, everything his Client was complaining about was addressed in the report, black print on white paper, easy to read. In fact, he brought some discovery papers to me and I saw where the Client had created a nice table (probably in Excel):

    Column 1 - Item in home inspection report
    Column 2 - Ask sellers to repair
    Column 3 - We will take reponsibility for
    Column 4 - Ask [inspector] to come back out

    Interestingly, all the stuff that was addressed in the report but being complained about, except for one item, had been entered in Column 3. The other item was in Column 4. Well they apparently never called him back out for that one item and decided ultimately that they didn't want to take responsibility for anything. So they sued everyone. Result?

    Termite inspector had no insurance and settled for $3,500 out of court.
    Home inspector had no insurance and settled for $32,500 out of court.
    Buyer's Realtor had insurance and settled for $55,000 out of court.
    Seller's Realtor had insurance and settled for $255,000 out of court.
    Seller had no money and the lawsuit against him goes on. The last I heard it was scheduled for trial this month.

    So along with the home inspector settling for $32,500 out of court, which came out of his own pocket since he had no insurance, he showed me the invoice from his [my] attorney: $57,300. So with no insurance, he was out $89,800. He got a second trust deed on the house and is no longer a home inspector. I believe he's working at FedEx Kinko's. His house is for sale, but I understand it's a short sale, possibly even a default/foreclosure.

    All because he couldn't see paying for that darn ol' insurance. It definitely would have been beneficial to have insurance and to settle out of court.

    I have another CREIA friend up in Orange County who went through a mold lawsuit several years ago. He won in a jury trial. Cost? $1,000 deductible on his E&O insurance.

    Two things about settling out of court: The other parties have to agree to it, and whenever something is settled out of court, there usually is a general release that says everyone recognizes that the most expedient and financially prudent way to settle the lawsuit is out of court (mediation, arbitration, etc.) and that no one admits that anyone did anything wrong (sure can get expensive to admit that no one did anything wrong!). So one's reputation is salvaged even when one had to pay to settle the complaint.


  35. #35

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Thank you Russell.


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,517

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Russell,

    My agent (Ins.) told me today that most out of court settlements actually settle for around 40% of the actual claim.

    Have you ever heard an amount as such on out of court settlements.


  37. #37
    Russel Ray's Avatar
    Russel Ray Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hurst View Post
    Russell,

    My agent (Ins.) told me today that most out of court settlements actually settle for around 40% of the actual claim.

    Have you ever heard an amount as such on out of court settlements.
    Hey, Rick.

    I have not. But I can tell you that the lawsuit here in San Diego with which I'm familiar was for "negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise due care." Amount of damages requested was "to be determined" and "to include punitive damages." Well, as we saw with the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, O.J.'s wrongful death lawsuit, the mold lawsuit in Texas, and many others, punitive damages in today's world can be in the multiple millions of dollars.

    I'm sure the mold lawsuit in Orange County involved punitive damages. After all, "Mold is Gold!". I don't know why the insurance company fought that one, and neither does the home inspector since, as he said (loosely quoted), "Once the cost went above my deductible, I really didn't follow the case anymore. The insurance company handled everything and I just provided information whenever it was requested of me."

    Home inspectors rarely, if ever, get sued for breach of contract. That has no real money associated with it and simply is not worth an attorney's time and effort. It's the "negligence, gross negligence, incompetence, fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise due care" that bring with it "punitive damages" that every attorney hopes will one day fall into his lap, especially an easy one.

    I'd rather settle out of court where there is a definitive settlement amount on the table and when I know that my insurance provider is going to pay anything over my deductible. I care more about my insurance provider than to want them to be subject to punitive damages by fighting a lawsuit on principle. Now if the principle happens to be a social change, then I'd go for it (i.e., mixed racial marriage, mixed religious marriage, gay marriage, slavery, discrimination, etc.), but if it's just a matter of money, let's settle it as quickly as possible so everyone can move on. Will I be unhappy about giving someone money who doesn't deserve it? Sure. But that will just make me work harder to ensure that it doesn't happen again.


  38. #38
    Kevin Healy's Avatar
    Kevin Healy Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Sorry Scott,

    I didn't see your question until I reread your post.
    I just performed a presentation on E&O at a CREIA meeting last week on the availability of E&O and the market.

    I was able to find 9 markets for E&O in CA. I was not able to find pricing for all of them. Many of the carriers that offer it do not market the product so you do not hear anything about it.

    Kevin


  39. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,365

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    As of my last contact with people who know my state allows and honors LOL's. Of course, there are some requirements as to how their written.

    Aside from the LOL clause the main thing my contract does is spell out the dispute resolution process. Regular old circuit court is not in there anywhere. Our state contractor's board has some pretty good med/arb that I've had the unfortunate luck of using.

    I know it's a far cry better than a lot of other areas where you just get dragged into court with everyone involved. I try to keep a pretty close ear to things in my state legislature and hope for the best.

    It's pretty funny around here.... we still can't pump our own gas and have no sales tax. I'm hoping any big changes to my industry are far down the road...


  40. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Fellman View Post
    It's pretty funny around here.... we still can't pump our own gas and have no sales tax. I'm hoping any big changes to my industry are far down the road...
    YOU CAN"T PUMP YOU OWN GAS! You have got to be kidding. How backwards is that. You do have other things to worry about.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Scott,

    No Self serve in NEW JERSEY also. Bet they wished They had No sales tax like Oregon.
    Scotch / Irish Mississippi Boy myself. Sometimes I just have to shrug my shoulders as
    driving by.

    6' 2 235
    Maybe 34yrs. old
    Watching Tow Truck Driver change Flat???

    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  42. #42
    Michael Waterbury's Avatar
    Michael Waterbury Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Our State requires Liabilty and E&O insurance before licenseing. I had to send my insurance company two different PIAs before They would approve and insure me.


  43. #43

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    New Jersey cracks me up. Not only can you NOT pump your own gas, you can't even make a left hand turn. All jug-handle turns. I will say this, however. Come February when it's 20 degrees out, you can bet your ass that not having to pump your own gas is a nice luxury. Jersey takes a lot of abuse for many reasons, but there are some absolutely great places. Forbes

    I grew up in Delaware where, like Oregon, there is no sales tax. What you see is what you get. Whereas San Diego has a nice 7.5%.


  44. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,517

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    In Dallas we have an 8 !/2 % sales tax.


  45. #45
    Richard Rushing's Avatar
    Richard Rushing Guest

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    yes... we have a heck of a nice sales tax, no question about it.

    But no State income tax.


  46. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,829

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    My area has a 7.75% to 9.25% depending on the area and what you are purchasing. But we have low property tax and no state income tax. Love that fair sales tax!

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Memphis TN.
    Posts
    4,311

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Scott,

    You Know it's All for the Children.

    Any and all Taxes old,new or purposed is only looking for a way to better provide for the states Children.

    DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!

    Last edited by Billy Stephens; 09-21-2007 at 08:24 AM. Reason: Smiley lest any swallow States propaganda
    It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie! Our Gang " The Pooch " (1932)
    Billy J. Stephens HI Service Memphis TN.

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Garland, TX
    Posts
    605

    Default Re: No PIA requirement

    Something else totally off topic from the original posting

    Taxes by State

    badair http://www.adairinspection.com Garland, TX 75042 TREC # 4563
    Commercial-Residential-Construction-EIFS-Infrared Thermography
    life is the random lottery of events followed by numerous narrow escapes

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •