CMI - The Outline Plan

[Joe Farsetta]

Gerry,

It was discussed in the old Steering Committee forum, some time ago.

As to CMI being another association, it is not. It is an independent board whose charter is to oversee and administrate the CMI program.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by rray

Not necessarily.

To reason this out, look at extreme examples:

Lowest standard - The house exists at 1234 Strawberry Fields. That's it.
Highest standard - Spend eight hours inspecting plumbing, electricity, roof, chimney, fireplace, foundation, walls, ceilings, floors, lights, ceiling fans, switches, outlets, faucets, toilets, bathtubs, showers, water heater, furnace, cooling condenser, wall heater. Etc.

Now which do you think has a higher risk associated with it?

I suppose if the standards say to spend 8 hours inspecting all of those items, and the inspector only reports that the house exists, a problem just might exist, and the risk just might be higher. If the inspector inspects to the standards written, there should be no additional risk.

In the end, regardless of the standards inspected to, it all comes down to how well the inspector does his/her job of pointing out the defects as defined by those standards. Screw up, you lose.

Remember that E&O is for "Errors and Omissions", and fully 50% of all claims are for structure and roofing. Even if the standard is higher for the CMI, there should be no greater risk of an error or an omission, in actuality because of the training and experience the risk should be lower. The inspector should "know more" about both what may be wrong with the items in the home, and should be more likely to catch them.

We would simply have to convince the insurance companies of that.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Gerry,

It was discussed in the old Steering Committee forum, some time ago.

As to CMI being another association, it is not. It is an independent board whose charter is to oversee and administrate the CMI program.

It has:
Its own governing Board
Its own heiarchy and internal structure
Its own COE
Its own membership requirements
Its own corporate standing
ITs own tax exempt status
Accepted SOPs
Annual Dues (soon)

Certainly sounds like an association (except that some people will be VERY careful not to call it that.)

[Richard L. Bennett]

Is it a 501 C-3 or C-6??

rlb

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by rbennett

Is it a 501 C-3 or C-6??

rlb

The Master Inspector Certification Board, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(6), tax-exempt organization

Apparantly a C-6.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by bwiley

If the inspector inspects to the standards written, there should be no additional risk.

There is, though, simply because there is soooooooooooooooooo much more in the standards. That should be pretty clear. If the standard includes only one item, risk is low. If the standard includes 1,000 items, risk is, hopefully obviously, much greater. It applies to the insurance companies covering the inspector as much as it does the inspector himself. If I only have to drive by and say the house exists, there's very little risk to me. But if I have to open electric panels, run water, climb on ladders, crawl under houses, etc., there much greater risk to me.

Screw up, you lose.

Also known as "life."

Remember that E&O is for "Errors and Omissions", and fully 50% of all claims are for structure and roofing.

I have never heard that statistic before. Do you have a document somewhere that we can read? I have seen Top 10 lists with "structure" and "roofing" being on the list.

Even if the standard is higher for the CMI, there should be no greater risk of an error or an omission, in actuality because of the training and experience the risk should be lower. The inspector should "know more" about both what may be wrong with the items in the home, and should be more likely to catch them.

Operative words there are "should," "should," and "should."

We would simply have to convince the insurance companies of that.

I think they already know that. That's why they are willing to provide insurance to us. But as my own carrier tells me, claims form a perfect inverse bell-shaped curve in that the newbies and the oldies account for most of the claims. Those in the middle in terms of experience and knowledge seem to do okay.

[Russel Ray]

[quote=jmichalski]It has:
Its own governing Board
Its own heiarchy and internal structure
Its own COE
Its own membership requirements
Its own corporate standing
ITs own tax exempt status
Accepted SOPs
Annual Dues (soon)

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Certainly sounds like an association (except that some people will be VERY careful not to call it that.)

It does, doesn't it?

Speaking of associations, whatever happened to InterNACHI?

[Blaine Wiley]

Russel,

The data I stated is from 7 or 8 years ago, and roofing and structure accounted for 51% of claims. Electrical, which everyone has a panic over, accounted for 1%.

Joe Farsetta has the most recent actuaries, and roofing and structure combine for 50%. Electrical is still 1%.

Not much of a change.

The data that no insurance company wants to provide, is the number of actual claims per insured.

[jmichalski]

[quote=rray]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

It has:
Its own governing Board
Its own heiarchy and internal structure
Its own COE
Its own membership requirements
Its own corporate standing
ITs own tax exempt status
Accepted SOPs
Annual Dues (soon)


It does, doesn't it?

Speaking of associations, whatever happened to InterNACHI?

Bought/taken back by Nick. I think Kenton is the new President.

Still not sure why NACHI (which operates worldwide, right?) needs an international component...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bwiley

Mike seems to be taking CMI down a road that people like me, Bowman, Beaumont, Sabados, ete. wished it to be on in the first place.

I just thought I would revive the thread that started the discussion on CMI and give us a chance to re-address what our thoughts are, today -- as opposed to what they were two weeks ago.

Blaine, your first.