Should the State or Insurance Companies Be Allowed To Endanger Our Lives?

[Michael J. Meeker]

I AM TALKING ABOUT INSIDE ATTIC PICTURES NOT OUTSIDE ELEVATION PICTURES

Well I believe it is time something is done about what is going on in Florida before someone gets killed.

With the current wind mitigation form they say it must have photos when the items are visible or accessible. This is being done in an attempt to prevent fraud. It does nothing to stop someone from faking it. Inspectors are risking their lives and the clients property so they get the credits they deserve.

This is not safe. Many times the items can be observed from within a few feet of the hatch. Photographing the stuff can be difficult or impossible even though the inspector can see and identify the features.

This practice is putting our lives at risk so our clients do not get screwed.

I believe the form must be changed before it is to late and someone dies.

If someone is found guilty of committing fraud their license should be in jeopardy.

It is great practice to photograph these things whenever it is possible and safe but should NOT BE A REQUIREMENT. Photos should be used by us to back up our findings when needed.

I am interested in any ideas on how we can stop this before a fellow inspector gets killed because some insurance person behind a desk wants to see a picture of a nail. It is absurd and something must be done before it is to late.

The people who come up with these bright ideas are not the ones putting their lives on the line and we must do something before it is to late.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

They are also not the ones doing the work. When one guy asked me about a picture he couldn't see, I told him, I was there take my word for it.
I sent him the 1.8 mb picture and he was satisfied.

As I said in the other post, bring back the 2 page form!

[Michael J. Meeker]

I had no problem with that one either.

Do not forget to vote.


Today in a 1998 house with double wraps I searched the attic looking for a nail.

I guarantee that there is a minimum of 8D nails holding on the deck.

Everywhere i put the zircon was 6 inches or less.

We should be allowed to do what we do well. Make an educated guess or assumption.

[Jeffrey R. Jonas]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

With the current wind mitigation form they say it must have photos when the items are visible or accessible.

I don't see the issue here. If you can see it, take a pic at full zoom in Hi-Res. If it's not accessible, you have your 'out'. If you need to, purchase a better camera. Nowhere in what you stated are you "required" to place yourself at risk.

This applies to 'any' aspect of inspecting. Not just Wind Mits.

JMHO.

[Michael J. Meeker]

the CLIENT WILL NOT GET THE DISCOUNT IF WE DO NOT GIVE THE DESKJOCKIES PICTURES.

many TIMES i CAN SEE SOMETHING i CANNOT PHOTOGRAPH WELL.

you CANNOT HOLD A RULER NEXT TO A NAIL AT 20 FEET.

I could go on and on and on. Plain and simple it is not safe or necessary.

sorry bout the caps.

I am currently trying out Nikons best little gem with 18 optical zoom. The problem is the angles and lighting conditions in the attic. I believe I now have about the best tool for the job but I have been using it less than a week.

Most times there is insulation in the way that has to be parted with a long pole while on your belly with nails everywhere under 2 feet away.

The inspections can be performed safe and well without having to mess with a camera in a deadly environment like a Florida attic.

Someone will die.

[Bruce M. Graham]

I do these day and day out but have never even come to to killing myself doing one. Your mileage my vary, to me this is a lot safer than walking scaffold all day slinging stucco, just my opinion

[James H. Bushart]

If it were really all that dangerous you guys would be charging more for them.

[Michael J. Meeker]

It truly is dangerous in most of them to do as they wish.

If you cannot do most of it very close to the hatch then you are putting yourself in jeopardy.

Should we belly crawl through blown in insulation with a foot clearance overhead to find a shiner?

If we do not the client will NOT get the credit.

I do it for the clients sake. I believe it should not be required. Most of the homes I go to it is not safe to go into the attic but I feel obligated because I can and so I do.

If you must crawl trusses do you consider that safe?

[Russell J. Hensel]

Michael I see your complaint and I agree with it. But when you charge 1/2 of the competition its all about price with you. Maybe if you were charging the proper and typical amount you would not worry about this as much.

I agree for $70 its crazy, but you painted yourself into the price war. Well now you got it!

My home inspections include a full attic inspection so it matters not to me. And we charge $150 for each and might go up if the new form gets approved.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

It truly is dangerous in most of them to do as they wish.

If you cannot do most of it very close to the hatch then you are putting yourself in jeopardy.

Should we belly crawl through blown in insulation with a foot clearance overhead to find a shiner?

If we do not the client will NOT get the credit.

I do it for the clients sake. I believe it should not be required. Most of the homes I go to it is not safe to go into the attic but I feel obligated because I can and so I do.

If you must crawl trusses do you consider that safe?

Again ... everyone is paid what they are worth. If someone is willing to risk his life for $75 so that his client can keep from spending even more ... what can I say?

[Michael J. Meeker]

Russel what is a full attic inspection?

Do you really belly crawl truss to truss in a low slope Florida home from the 60's.

If we followed internachi guidelines no one would even go in 1/2 of them.

Price is not my issue I am concerned with someone dying from trying to locate a 8D or equivalent nail in 120+ plus heat.

The photos are not necessary and hurting customers when they are not safely possible is wrong.


I go into everyone I can get into and sometimes you cannot get the picture and many times If I were in charge I would say it is not worth the risk to person and or property.

They should take us on our word like all of our other customers do.

We make assumptions and educated guesses every day and most of us are pretty good at it.

To be required to attempt to photograph everything we make a decision is dangerous and useless. Those committing fraud will just fake it and those of us who go the extra mile may wind up dead.

For the State to require us and for the insurance companies to punish those who cannot provide the pictures is just wrong.

I never will get many of you here. Most of the time you are all about looking out for the Inspector now in this case many of you do not seem to care that what is being asked of us is deadly. Go figure.

I guess it only matters on who brings up something and not what it is really about.

[Dennis J. Bonner]

Someone will always be willing to do it Meeker. Its survival of the fittest out here. You should know, you are a contractor. Ive done much crazier sh**t in construction than any inspection. A little danger makes it interesting at least.

[Michael J. Meeker]

I agree Dennis but it is wrong and deadly.,

Osha would not ever let me do the stuff I do on a daily basis I guarantee it.

[Michael C. Wagner]

The low slope roofs are a challenge but there are ways to get what is needed without risking life and limb. But I know I'm lucky because I don't weigh all that much and can move around the attic well enough to do these inspections. I know an inspector who weighs about 50 lbs more than I do and physically can't maneuver in half of the attics he enters. He feels he is doing a disservice to his customers because he is not able to get what is required on the 1802 form. He knows he can figure out a way to get what is required but, because he has enough work doing other types of inspections, he chooses not to do wind mits.

[Michael J. Meeker]

It is not safe and proves nothing it should be removed from the requirements.

If an honest man says something do you really think an underwriter can challenge his opinion based on a poor quality photo.

Scumbags will continue to fake it and honest guys will have to do something that is not necessary for an accurate inspection.

I am amazed on a daily basis about the people in this profession and how they feel about so many different things

At least it keeps it interesting.