Real estate agencies requiring inspectors to carry insurance.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by whandley

I'm starting to think you don't like insurance companies to much and realtors even less. I feel your pain. This is a tough business to be in, unforturnately realtors are a necessary evil in the game. As far as insurance go's, you know what Confucious say, "Don't leave home without it!"

McKenna, Thanks for the backup. Handley, Thanks for the interaction.

Yes we share the pain. Actually I have many good Realtor friends. I get lots of Realtor referrals. There are 33,000 Realtors in Dallas area. I am pleased to get along with enough to keep the ball rolling. They negotiate on behalf of their clients and do not compromise my report. The ones that don't like me go somewhere else. That leaves 29,999 to fill the opening. Disposable realtors, HA.

After 20 years in business I have many realtors who use me for two years then go somewhere else because I am too tough. They ALWAYS come back a year to two later.

What I do not like about insurance stems from a different philosophy. When I do an inspection for $300 or so I am not willing to guarantee I found it all or pay restitution if I do. In recent posts on this forum an insurance company expressed the idea an inspector should pay for what they miss. A NACHI attorney interpreted law in a similar manner. Many inspectors post "being responsible" for their work. What a martyr syndrome. What I do not like is this industry rolling over and saying I'll pay for anything I miss for $300. Thats where it is going; look at Kansas legislation.

Sure I would be liable to Kansas standards for 5% of the home sale. Thats less than the Realtor. Its a compensation thing. I would probably eat a rabbit turd for $10,000 cash (heck a survivalist will do it for a beer )

As for insurance companies. Hey they are in business for themselves not you. Your company is an actuarial. We promote the concept of responsibility to the consumer by calling it E&O. It should be called professional liability insurnace not E&O. That what doctors and lawyers call it. The very name E&O imparts a warranty implication. We sell "miss it and pay for it" with the product name.

What irks me is inspectors who advertise "Do not use an inspector who do not have E&O" then they limit their liability in their contract. In some sense Kansas insanity makes sense. You gotta have E&O and you cannot limit liability. Wow now that is scary. Can you see the dishonesty in advertising "we protect the public with E&O then limiting it in a contract?"

The preferred provider scheme will prevail in spite of rule changes. In Texas they simply renamed "compensation" to "advertising". Its just not "preferred". I see that always being the case. Its just a business decision and I do not have a problem with that. It would be interesting to get a Realtor in deposition and ask "so you referred this inspector because they were the best for the client or because you got advertising money from them?".

Every business has its problems however. Thanks for your comments. I am not offended at all.

John

[David Nice]

Here's a button to wear.

[David Nice]

Or this!

[wforsyth]

Those are pretty cool! I like.

[jjordan]

Guess what Nick, in the Maryland and Virginia area there are also ASHI members paying Long and Foster. I believe one of them is on the licensing board for Maryland.

[Jacques A. Sirvain]

Originally Posted by jjordan

Guess what Nick, in the Maryland and Virginia area there are also ASHI members paying Long and Foster. I believe one of them is on the licensing board for Maryland.

Is there a Home Inspector Licensing Board in Maryland?