Ask FREA's Ben Garrison.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by ekartal6

Ben,

I've been under the impression that there are legitimate ways to protect personal assets from a suit. I just haven't done my home work. In your personal opinion do you feel this cannot be done?

Thanks

Erol

Again, I thought the most ironclad way to do that was through an irrevocable trust. But was told otherwise by an attorney. I'm neither an attorney or a lawyer so I don't know for sure.

If you're married, you could always put EVERYTHING in your wife's name. How many of you would do that?

[John Cahill]

Thanks Ben. I agree with most of your comments. I want inspectors to think about the conflicts.

IF an inspector is responsible for restitution then put it in the Scope of the Standards. "IF the inspector misses an item they will pay for cost of repair". Anything less is deception. It would seem hypocritical to say one should be held financially liable but not require it in an SoP scope.

As for advertising E&O. Many inspectors do . . . . then they turn around and limit it with a contract. That is bait and switch in my book and also deception.

The sad conclusion is WE as an industry (and insurance companies) propagate this myth of "miss it and pay". WE are our own worst enemy. We establish unrealistic expectations for consumers.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Thanks Ben. I agree with most of your comments. I want inspectors to think about the conflicts.

IF an inspector is responsible for restitution then put it in the Scope of the Standards. "IF the inspector misses an item they will pay for cost of repair". Anything less is deception. It would seem hypocritical to say one should be held financially liable but not require it in an SoP scope.

As for advertising E&O. Many inspectors do . . . . then they turn around and limit it with a contract. That is bait and switch in my book and also deception.

The sad conclusion is WE as an industry (and insurance companies) propagate this myth of "miss it and pay". WE are our own worst enemy. We establish unrealistic expectations for consumers.

I think you can sum it up best by saying that Home Inspectors are caught in a VICIOUS cross-fire between home buyers, attorneys, insurance companies, etc., etc. You're providing a valuable service that people need and depend on.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Thanks Ben. I agree with most of your comments. I want inspectors to think about the conflicts.

IF an inspector is responsible for restitution then put it in the Scope of the Standards. "IF the inspector misses an item they will pay for cost of repair". Anything less is deception. It would seem hypocritical to say one should be held financially liable but not require it in an SoP scope.

As for advertising E&O. Many inspectors do . . . . then they turn around and limit it with a contract. That is bait and switch in my book and also deception.

The sad conclusion is WE as an industry (and insurance companies) propagate this myth of "miss it and pay". WE are our own worst enemy. We establish unrealistic expectations for consumers.

With regard to your comment on advertising E&O, are you referring to the limitations set forth in a pre-inspection agreement? I think often times that a home buyer does not quite understand what they are purchasing with an Inspection. As long as they understand/agree with the scope of the inspection, what it covers and what it doesn't cover, prior to the actual inspection, I don't see that being a bait and switch so much. Hence the term pre-inspection agreement.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

With regard to your comment on advertising E&O, are you referring to the limitations set forth in a pre-inspection agreement? I think often times that a home buyer does not quite understand what they are purchasing with an Inspection. As long as they understand/agree with the scope of the inspection, what it covers and what it doesn't cover, prior to the actual inspection, I don't see that being a bait and switch so much. Hence the term pre-inspection agreement.

Yes, the terms of the pre-inspection agreement. If you advertise "Don't use an inspector who does not have E&O then have them sign a contract that limits liability to 3x report fee (or whatever) then I think that is bait and switch. IF you advertise E&O stand behind your freeking ad.

I always tell my client I am not going to find it all for what they are paying and the time I spend. If they want a guarantee I can arrange it for more money. An attorney on this forum told me that he would cancel my policy if he knew I was telling people I could not find it all.

I think inspectors are irked that the industry is not fighting to limit insane liability. What should it be? Heck no more than 3 to 10 times the fee. If they want me to guarantee a 40k roof then pay me 5k for the inspection.

Ha. Did you know a realtor commision is 50x times average inspection fee and we get the liability.

No offense intended but inspectors are patsies.

[John Cahill]

How do I manage liability when a customer ask about E&O? The customer REALLY wants me to inspect their home.

My method and madness

I tell the client that the E&O product is about twice as much and here is how it works. I tell them to use a guy I really cannot stand. He has E&O. Then I do my inspection afterwards and tell the client to submit all the misses to the other guy. If something else shows up in the future I do free expert work against the other guy. I make the guy advertising E&O the patsy.

Not really but would'nt it be fun!

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

This is fun

James have you any data to back up your claim of "most" attorneys will sue HI's for a cut of future earnings? And could you break down the word "most" into some sort of quantifiable number?
</IMG>

I could if Ben would be kind enough to provide me with the raw data from which he gives his statistics...(i.e. his claim that "All inspectors will be sued" in the course of their lifetime.)

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I could if Ben would be kind enough to provide me with the raw data from which he gives his statistics...(i.e. his claim that "All inspectors will be sued" in the course of their lifetime.)

So let me get this straight James... your statements don't have any backing with numbers? And further, they're contingent on data you're asking me to provide? Interesting...

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Yes, the terms of the pre-inspection agreement. If you advertise "Don't use an inspector who does not have E&O then have them sign a contract that limits liability to 3x report fee (or whatever) then I think that is bait and switch. IF you advertise E&O stand behind your freeking ad.

I always tell my client I am not going to find it all for what they are paying and the time I spend. If they want a guarantee I can arrange it for more money. An attorney on this forum told me that he would cancel my policy if he knew I was telling people I could not find it all.

I think inspectors are irked that the industry is not fighting to limit insane liability. What should it be? Heck no more than 3 to 10 times the fee. If they want me to guarantee a 40k roof then pay me 5k for the inspection.

Ha. Did you know a realtor commision is 50x times average inspection fee and we get the liability.

No offense intended but inspectors are patsies.

With respect to advertising E&O, here's the stance I would take: Don't ask, don't tell. And I surely would not guarantee anything. That's asking for trouble

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I could if Ben would be kind enough to provide me with the raw data from which he gives his statistics...(i.e. his claim that "All inspectors will be sued" in the course of their lifetime.)

Brian, quantifiying James's assertion that an attorney will try to get future earnings is not necessary. And probably not possible. Common sense suggests that will be the outcome assuming that there's a judgement against you as the Inspector and you cannot pay it through insurance.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by ekartal6

Ben,

I've been under the impression that there are legitimate ways to protect personal assets from a suit. I just haven't done my home work. In your personal opinion do you feel this cannot be done?

Thanks

Erol

Erol.

Try this, send for the books they're very interesting reading, it shows you how to place your assets far away from any attornies attempting to take them by setting up layer after layer of protection, I showed them to my attorney and he sent for a cuple of copies, my wife and I are using some of the ideas in the books, it takes time, but soon I will Own Nothing>

http://www.rjmintz.com/apptoc.htm

[jschulte]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Erol.

Try this, send for the books they're very interesting reading, it shows you how to place your assets far away from any attornies attempting to take them by setting up layer after layer of protection, I showed them to my attorney and he sent for a cuple of copies, my wife and I are using some of the ideas in the books, it takes time, but soon I will Own Nothing>

http://www.rjmintz.com/apptoc.htm

Very good book. Just make sure you start the process before you are in any litigation. I luckily already own nothing, Thank You Student Loans!

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

So let me get this straight James... your statements don't have any backing with numbers? And further, they're contingent on data you're asking me to provide? Interesting...

You are a quick study Ben.

Welcome

Your turn in the barrel may now be over.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

You are a quick study Ben.

Welcome

Your turn in the barrel may now be over.

It's about damn time! Although getting hazed is sorta fun. Reminds me of my college days

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

With respect to advertising E&O, here's the stance I would take: Don't ask, don't tell. And I surely would not guarantee anything. That's asking for trouble

Ben,

Thanks for your insight. You are right that inspectors are in a cross fire. For the new guys out there, I have known FREA since 1996 and they have stayed the course. Its not a perfect world but hang in there with the ones that stayed with you. Sure there are bad stories but there are good ones too. Thanks Ben for letting us BBQ you. You did well. John