How we are getting our members insurance inspection work, and lots of it.

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by rthoroman

Mario,

Yes I do system inspections, or individual inspections, or let's say there was some hail damage and a home owner needed a new roof, well the home owner (not an insurance company) wanted me to verify or inspect the work. But Insurance system inspections I'm not familiar with that in my area? Please explain.


Also, I'll assume that you do not have these 4 point insurance inspections in Canada either?

Ray,

Allow me to clarify, when I said that these inspections were at the client’s request, that's not to say that the homeowner decided one morning to call me and do the inspection! This was requested by their carrier. “You want your insurance coverage to continue with us? Inspect your roof and give us a report!”.
As far as the four point inspections are concerned, I have never been asked to do multiple "SYSTEM" “Four Point” inspections for the insurance companies or the homeowners. I just do simple roof, electrical, HVAC, and/or plumbing inspections at the request of the homeowners at request/demand of their insurance companies.

In answer to your question, the insurance companies here typicaly ask for roof, plumbing, electrical inspections and sometimes safety inspections. Not a four point inspection.

Nick,

My sister-in-law recently had hail damage to her roof. The insurance adjuster had a roofing company inspect it and than the insurance company paid the amount estimated/quoted by the roofing contractor less the deductible. The entire roof covering was replaced [The roofing company quoted $12K for a new roof, but they did not do the work.].
IMO It is up to us [the inspectors] to move our butts and get the word out to the insurance companies that we are in the business of inspecting damage such as this or the condition of a particular system and report back to the insurance companies. This would eliminate the homeowner and increase our fees.
The last roof inspection I did at request of a homeowner for their insurance company needed to be replaced several years ago! The lady was a widow, and she begged me to tell the insurance company that the roof covering was good for another year! She gave me $150 for the inspection and I almost gave it back to her! Now if I was to inspect the same work for the insurance company, I would have charged at the very least $500

[Mathew Hawley]

The 4-Point format for homes over 50 years has been very helpful.

Thanks Nick

[kpierce]

Hey Mathew, what's the deal with Dish Network?

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Phase 1 --- Level 1...I think that this is going to create a whole lot of confusion in the future with the terminology. It's bad enough that commercial real estate agents don't know the difference between the two already. I can see down the road when clients call for a commercial inspection and they say they need a Phase 1 inspection, we are going to have to ask "Do you mean a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment or a Phase 1 Chimney and Fireplace Inspection?" And they are going to respond "I don't know, my real estate agent and lender just told me I needed one."

I know that the NFPA referrs to chimney inspections broken down into 3 Levels. I am assuming you changed the name as not to infringe on any portion of the NFPA wording or descriptions to CYA. I just think that a different name or keeping it named as a Level inspection will create a lot less confussion in the future if this standard actually becomes widely accepted in commercial inspections.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Until now, no standards of practice existed anywhere.

There is probably a good reason for that...and your "standard", as published on another thread, is more "procedural" and is written to be more of a "standard operating procedure"....not a standard of practice. It lacks the requirements in both regards and should be scrapped.

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

There is probably a good reason for that...and your "standard", as published on another thread, is more "procedural" and is written to be more of a "standard operating procedure"....not a standard of practice. It lacks the requirements in both regards and should be scrapped.

Actually Jim...I think a Standard Operating Procedure would be more clearly defined with detailed step by step procedure on how to conduct each and every step of the process which this standard does not. It reads more like a checklist than a standard.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by sgilligan1

Actually Jim...I think a Standard Operating Procedure would be more clearly defined with detailed step by step procedure on how to conduct each and every step of the process which this standard does not.

That's what I meant when I said it is lacking in both regards...it is neither a standard operating procudure or a standard of practice.

Poorly conceived and written. Should have been independently reviewed by our ESOP Committee before being published, IMO.

[Nick Gromicko]

You're confusing an Inspection Standards of Practice with a training course.

www.nachi.org/comsop.htm

[Steven C. Waskewicz]

Is this course available yet?
http://www.nachi.org/roofdamageassessmentcourse.htm

I can't seem to find the link, for some reason...

[Stacey D. Horan]

That's okay too, I'm doing foundation inspections and just beginning these 4 points which are helping alot right now. I also take care of my father in law full time so these all work for me. Thanks Nick, once again!!