From: office@karei.org
[FONT=Tahoma]To:[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Sent: [/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Saturday, January 27, 2007[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma] [/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]9:38 AM[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]
>Subject: Legislation Update
>
>
> > Well, its done. The language for the home inspection bill has been
> > finalized. This is not a draft or a scare tactic as some in the [/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Kansas[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]
> > City have been trying to portray over the last few weeks. We don’t play
> > those games. Our time and your time is to valuable and truthfully we just
> > don’t have free time to spew the hateful derogatory dribble which has been
> > going around. What we have been doing is spending countless hours making
> > sure those who want to regulate us, but don’t have a clue about our
> > industry, don’t have a free hand to slap us down. Most of you have seen
> > the Tom Sloan language and I even sent out a note about it a few days ago.
> > As you may remember, that language was, for the most part, taken from a
> > proposal we reviewed at our annual membership meeting in 2005 at Royals
> > Stadium. Some have been spreading the story that this language came from
> > KAR, but if you were at the meeting at Royals Stadium, pull out a copy of
> > what we discussed and check for yourself. We can actually back up what we
> > tell you with facts here at KAREI. WE don’t have to make stuff up. Rep.
> > Sloan put his own spin on it which made it very harmful for our industry.
> > Due to the legislatures business schedule a dead line of last Wednesday
>was
> > place on the introduction of all new legislation for this session.
> > Unfortunately, apparently no one knew this but the committee chairs so we
> > were cut out of presenting our preferred language. All is not lost. We
> > spent many many hours and into the early hours of the morning both
> > Wednesday and Thursday on the phone and with e-mails to amend Rep. Sloan’
> > bill into a bill which was acceptable. We had two choices, fight a bill
> > which already had enough positive attention to get the votes to pass both
> > houses, or fight to fix the bad bill. We were able to work with Rep.
> > Sloan and Rep. Steve Brunk the chairman of the Commerce and Labor
> > committee, which is where the bill will be place to make corrections. We
> > have developed and fostered many frien[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]dl[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]y relationships with key
> > legislators over the summer including Rep. Brunk which has greased many
> > wheels. All summer long we have been battling over unacceptable
> > requirements on limits of liability which KAR and the legislature wanted
> > to be at $15,000, but we were able to defeat this ridiculous amount. Over
> > the last few days we have gone over dozens of revisions back and forth
> > between us, KAR, Rep. Sloan and Rep. Brunk and have come up with a very
> > favorable bill. We were able to lower all of the requirements for
> > financial responsibility including general liability, which went from
> > $300,000 to $250,000, bond requirements, which went from $15,000 to
> > $10,000, and the big one, liability limits which went from $15,000 of
> > mandatory liability limit per inspection to $1,000 with no strings. No
> > requirement to offer increased liability for an additional fee, no $1,000
> > per system, simply $1,000 period. What this does is helps us to keep the
> > trial attorneys off of our back because there is no money in it. They
> > wont be trying to defeat the “cost of the inspection fee” language in your
> > pre inspection agreement because it wont be there. What will be there is
> > the maximum liability limit per state law which is $1,000. What this will
> > cost you is this. You will have to present, prior to the inspection a
>“pre
> > inspection notice” not a pre inspection agreement. The original language
> > required a pre inspection agreement be signed before the inspection could
> > start. We argued that many times the client is not present or was planing
> > to attend and at the last moment had to stay late for work, etc., so this
> > language was not practicable in the real world. Although we all agree a
> > pre inspection agreement is very important to provide the inspector with
> > contractual protections, what we agreed to was a pre inspection notice
> > which simply lists the limits of the liability, scope of the inspection,
> > and the standards of practice you are following. This can be a generic
> > document developed by the Registration Board which all Realtors can have
> > and provide at the time the purchase contract is signed. No prevision was
> > made that “WE” had to get it to the client, only that it had to get to
> > them. If the Realtor agrees to deliver the form for you this will satisfy
> > this provision.
> >
> > Many items were traded out of the bill but only those items which the
> > Inspector run Registration Board can put into place as administrative
> > items.
> >
> > Look it over and read it carefully, some areas are tricky and require
> > reading the entire section to get the picture of the whole concept for the
> > section. The bill should be available on the legislatures web site on
> > Tuesday, we don’t have a bill number yet, but we will let you know. I
> > have attached the final language with this note, but the final copy will
> > have some structural changes to make it fit the states standard.
> >
> > It has been a long hard road with literally thousands of dollars spent,
> > most of which was not the memberships, and hundreds of hours spent in
> > research, discussions, meetings, and travel. With this bill we are not
> > protected and will always have to be vigilant against those who want to
> > harm us, but it does give us many protections which will give us a solid
> > platform to fight from.
> >
> > Key elements of the bill are:
> > (1) If you are a current active inspector have taken a nationally
> > recognized exam, have been in business for at least 3 years and have
> > completed 300 inspections and are a member of NAHI, NACHI, or ASHI you
> > will only need to comply with the financial requirements, which are
> > $250,000 general liability, $25,000 fidelity bond (less than $200), and
> > pick your choice of a $10,000 surety bond, bank letter of credit or escrow
> > account.
> >
> > If you are a current active inspector or a newbie and have not taken a
> > nationally recognized exam and have not been in business for 3 years or
> > completed 300 inspections than you will need to complete 80 hours of class
> > room study with educators approved by the Registration Board by July 1,
> > 2008. This can be at a single class or at weekend classes. You must also
> > join one of the national associations listed above which is set up to
> > monitor continuing education activities and provide other benefits the
> > state cannot offer and meet the same financial protection requirements.
> >
> > (2) The limit of your liability as mentioned above is $1,000, and has a
> > statute of limitations of 12 months from the date of the inspection.
> >
> > (3) You can choose the standards of practice you desire from NAHI, ASHI,
> > or NACHI and your pre inspection agreement may include additional
> > restriction on your scope of service. The only restriction is if your
> > restrictions differ in scope from the Bord published restrictions it must
> > be provided before the inspection.
> >
> > (4) Specific restrictions have been listed to insure tradesman,
> > contractors or other professionals which may desire to do home
> > inspections, such as engineers follow the same rules as the rest of us.
> > This was not done to pick on any particular group, only to insure a
> > minimum standard is followed by all.
> >
> > (5) The bill provides the teeth needed for the Board to in-force the
> > rules and regulations and adopt additional regulations as needed to grow
> > with the industry.
> >
> > That’s it, very simple. We will publish the bill on the KAREI web site as
> > soon as this process is completed.
[/FONT]
