Does this guy know what he's talking about? - InspectionNews

Ken Britt · #1 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 04:47 PM

Home Inspector News and Information E&O Insurance for inspectors.
I'm thinking of getting it and I ran across this article. Does this guy know what he's talking about?!

Scott Patterson · #2 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 06:12 PM

Who is this guy? What is his name?

Never mind I found it.

Registrant:
D Symolon
1783 May Glen Dr. NW
Acworth, GA 30102
US

Domain name: FORINSPECTORS.COM

Administrative Contact:
Symolon, D dbsecommerce@bellsouth.net
1783 May Glen Dr. NW
Acworth, GA 30102
US
+1.4043759868
Technical Contact:
Symolon, D dbsecommerce@bellsouth.net
1783 May Glen Dr. NW
Acworth, GA 30102
US
+1.4043759868

Ken Britt · #3 (**permalink**) 12-05-2007, 10:31 AM

I just wanted to know of what he says is on the money. I've been checking around and, so far, he's right.
Does anybody have a different opinion or experience?

Jack Feldmann · #4 (**permalink**) 12-05-2007, 01:01 PM

He builds a case either way. This topic has been gone over countless times before here (and other forums). I didn't see anything that wasn't true in his piece.

I have had insurance since around 1992 - had to use it once (when I was sued by someone I DIDN'T do an inspection for). It was probably BECAUSE I had insurance, but can't be sure, because her atty was a guy I had just gone up against as an expert witness.

I decided to get (and keep) insurance as a business decision, same as I have car and home insurance. Now I have to have insurance because of state licensing.

Over the years I have seen several cases where it would have been a really bad choice NOT to have insurance. I have several inspector friends that have been sued, and without insurance they would have been dealt a major hit to their checkbook. In one case he probably would have lost everything he owned had he not had insurance.

To me, insurance is a necessary evil that I have and hope I never have to use it, just like my car and home insurance. I sleep better at night.

Just my view.
JF

Ben Garrison · #5 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 03:41 PM

He raises some basic points that you could argue either way. But for the most part, I tend to agree with him.

Gunnar Alquist · #6 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 08:23 PM

I don't know how it is in Georgia, but in California there are two types of inspectors: Those that have been sued and those that are going to be sued. In CA, I would not inspect without insurance. Like Jack said, it is just a part of business. It protects the inspector and it protects the client.

Jeffrey L. Mathis · #7 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 04:12 PM

I think I make money on my insurance. Raised my rates to what I felt was twice the per-job cost. It is slowly making a difference with some agents. Now the negative is that I have had occasion to need a response from my carrier and the results are not positive. The case involves a client that has taken minor issues and attempted to baloon them to $30,000.00 and a myriad of other items. My carrier has not been there for me as they should and they are the big dogs.
The jury (eek) is out on this whole thing but I'll certainly be shopping alternatives at the end of my current policy.
JLMathis

Scott Patterson · #8 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Mathis

I think I make money on my insurance. Raised my rates to what I felt was twice the per-job cost. It is slowly making a difference with some agents. Now the negative is that I have had occasion to need a response from my carrier and the results are not positive. The case involves a client that has taken minor issues and attempted to baloon them to $30,000.00 and a myriad of other items. My carrier has not been there for me as they should and they are the big dogs.
The jury (eek) is out on this whole thing but I'll certainly be shopping alternatives at the end of my current policy.
JLMathis

Regardless of who your insurance is with, once you have a claim and it is turned over to them you are basically out of the picture. The goal of the insurance carrier is to limit their loss, even if this means to settling when you don't want them to do that.

Last week I told an attorney who was representing a home inspector that they needed to limit their exposure and settle. The home inspector screwed up on a couple of small things and if the other side dug further they would find a couple of major things that the inspector missed, just as easy as I found them.

Billy Stephens · #9 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Mathis

... The case involves a client that has taken minor issues and attempted to baloon them to $30,000.00 and a myriad of other items. My carrier has not been there for me as they should and they are the big dogs.
The jury (eek) is out ...

Jeffery,

Just Think where You Would be Now without Insurance!

This is not a personal right or wrong issue with the carrier. Just($$$$) business.

If I'm in an auto accident I much rather have the insurance company handle it and continue about my business.

On the phone with Aggrieved party,Was your fault to, "No Mame" Match!! I want the Whole Thing Painted (match paint),I had tinted glass,The Seat don't feel right,It makes a noise,ect.

Jeffrey L. Mathis · #10 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 07:48 PM

Well,
I think there is a misunderstanding. My carrier has a file, has all the paperwork and they did not respond. Now nothing may come of it, but their attitude is to just wait and see what happens to me.
I'll get hauled before the state board for sure. Will get some disciplinary action. Will have to hire counsel for the board. Had the insurance carrier done their job, this would likely not happen.
My point is that having paid a premium is no guarantee of support.
JLMathis

Scott Patterson · #11 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Mathis

Well,
I think there is a misunderstanding. My carrier has a file, has all the paperwork and they did not respond. Now nothing may come of it, but their attitude is to just wait and see what happens to me.
I'll get hauled before the state board for sure. Will get some disciplinary action. Will have to hire counsel for the board. Had the insurance carrier done their job, this would likely not happen.
My point is that having paid a premium is no guarantee of support.
JLMathis

You have various stages of claims, the following is a very simple summary of them:
The first would be the call from the client.
Then would be a demand letter.
Then the formal law suit.

Not knowing what stage you or the time frame you are in with your issue, it is difficult to give you any advice. I doubt that your carrier is not doing anything if a formal suit has been levied against you.

The process goes like this. The insurance provider that you are using will send the complaint to their carrier (the company that has the coverage. Could be AIG, Lloyds, etc.). At this point it is out of your hands and you have no say so in what happens.... A claims specialist will contact you so they can get all of the background information on the issue. At this point they will contact an attorney in your area that they have a working relationship with. That attorney will then contact you or sometimes they contact a litigation consultant (like myself) to review all of the information and to advise them on what is going on.

It can take several weeks or a few months depending on what is going on. The folks that are suing you will not file a complaint because that can muddy the waters in a lawsuit. After a suit is settled then the complaints are filed. I would not worry about the NC board coming after you. You have turned it over to your insurance company and it is out of your hands. It can take years to end a lawsuit. I just consulted on one that was started back in April 2005. The insurance company used all of the delay tactics they could use to wear the plaintiff down, and it worked. Suit was settled for about 70% of the original amount.