Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WESTMINSTER CO
    Posts
    1,097

    Default RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Hey guys

    Here in Colorado we have a builder --RICHMOND HOMES--who wants from inspectors--a certificate of insurance that names Richmond American homes of Colorado as certificate holder and an additional insured in regards to their general liability insurance--PLUS-inspectors automobile and workman compensation or personal medical insurance info--before they will let us inspect one of their new builds--is this happening in your state and what do you think about this. some inspectors here refuse to do it--me being one.

    Similar Threads:
    OREP Insurance

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,857

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Many national/large developers/builders have been doing that in Florida since the late 1990s/early 2000s.

    In additional to wanting to protect themselves (which is part of it, really, it is a realistic part of it) ... they want to make it more difficult for HIs to inspect their homes (which is the major part of it, but we all know that is likely the main reason for it).

    Carry a $2mil GL policy (doesn't cost that much), and everyone should already have auto insurance and some type of health insurance, so it really shouldn't be a big deal to comply with.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,408

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Been going on here for more than 15-20 years, absurd hurdles to keep private inspectors off their property. I love the $1,000,000 vehicle insurance requirement, too funny.

    The wack-a-doo subs don't have this much insurance, and they are actually on-site building the product.

    Dom.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,857

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino View Post
    The wack-a-doo subs don't have this much insurance, and they are actually on-site building the product.
    Yeah, that's the most ridiculous part - demanding the HIs carry more than the sub contractors.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Richmond tried that here in Washington State years back, but I have inspected their homes since without any issues.....but, on another note.....

    https://www.consumeraffairs.com/housing/richmond.html


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    C'mon, guys, standard operating procedure that everyone who steps on the site has insurance and names the owner as an AI. Protects both the owner and you, keeps the attorneys away, and forces the insurance companies to defend. And, no, HIs do not carry more than subs. I'd be shocked if any sub carried less than $2 million in a tract or condo or large apartment development. It's usually $5 million in my neighborhood, and is only $1 million on a single house.

    The only slightly goofy part is the AI is usually between parties to a contract, and the HI contract is with the HO. The AI is to ensure the HI is actually carrying insurance, and not just taking someone's word for it.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,857

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Quote Originally Posted by CoronadoBruin View Post
    And, no, HIs do not carry more than subs. I'd be shocked if any sub carried less than $2 million in a tract or condo or large apartment development.
    In Florida, the minimum insurance is, as I recall, $300,000 for General Contractors, and many carry only the minimum.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,425

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    In Colorado, the requirement that rankles me the most, is requiring a city business license for the location of the property. The cities only require a business license for the mailing address of your business, so Richmond is demanding something beyond what our cities require. AND Richmond does not require any of this from real estate agents or their subs. Heck, finding workers is so tough, the only requirement to be an on-site worker is breathing.
    The experience of you guys in other states is revealing. There is a belief here that when we get licensing (likely next year) then these hurdles from the builders will go away, but clearly that isn't true at all.

    I no longer inspect Richmond homes either. There hurdles aren't worth the trouble. But when I used to inspect them, they did something I didn't see with other builders. When they learn that there will be an inspection, they stop all work, and wait for the inspection. So, most of what I see is unfinished. I think it gives them the plausible "reply" that "we haven't finished." I tell clients to call me when they move in. My experience is that Richmond will come in and fix anything that I find.

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    Insurance isn't even required in California, only a disclosure in the contract between a contractor and homeowner as to whether the contractor has any business liability coverage. The substantial amounts of coverage I mentioned are strictly B2B. Smallest policies in California of which I'm aware are in the same amount you mentioned, $300,000, and a million dollar policy is almost literally only pennies more. And yet so many don't have coverage. SMH

    Edit: Whoops, this is in reply to Jerry


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    93

    Default Re: RICHMOND HOMES ASKING FOR PERSONAL INFO FOR INSPECTIONS

    We went through this in 2004 in AZ, when I was President of the AZ chapter of ASHI. The builder (BFC, stood for Brown Family Communities) wanted all that you said, + we had to be accompanied by a superintendent, + we could not park on the driveway, + we could not walk the roof or enter the attic, + we had to leave a copy of the report with the super, which eliminated any inspector that had to go home to type the report (which was most of us back then),+ all builder warranties were void if a private inspector inspected the home, and more.

    But the last 2 items were truly over the top- if anything breaks or fails or anyone gets hurt while we're on site we are responsible. So if their laborer falls off a ladder while we're there, it's on us. They had us indemnify them about 12 times, but the very last item said that if they forgot something they wanted us to indemnify them for we were agreeing to indemnify them for anything else they may think up in the future.

    We had a well known attorney write a letter to the ROC and BFC explaining that inspectors were regulated in AZ and their requests were illegal. They were infringing on free trade (some federal law) and could not require anything that the state did not require of us. Even the ROC had to admit that what BFC was requiring was too much. You might get together and have an attorney send a letter to this company. As I recall the fact that we were regulated made a difference, and I believe I heard that you just became 'unregulated' in CO. But it may be worth a shot. I have a copy of that letter, and a copy of a newspaper article from the roc addressing this issue. I don't want to upload it, private message me if you want a copy.

    I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. (Thomas Edison)

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
  •