E&O Survey

[gkoehl]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Mine doesn't.

This is directly off the T&P site in the members only area
"Underwriting Requirements

• Signed application
• Loss history, if any
• Resumes for any inspector with less than three years of experience
• Use of a NACHI pre-inspection contract required

"

This might not have been in place at the time you got your coverage. But to get E&O now, I would be bound to use a NACHI inspection agreement for my coverage to be vaild

It is a ugly staircase of logic

but again-

State Mandated E&O
E&O through T&P (unless the state wants to dictate who an inspector can secure E&O coverage from)
T&P requires NACHI Agreement
NACHI Agreement specifies NACHI SOP
TREC allows for a departure procedure (which I would have to envoke to keep the mandated E&O coverage (from the provider of my choice) that the State requires. And with TREC being a government enitiy they would either have to violate their own laws (or change them which would then remove or limit my rights as a consumer) or go against the State's decision that Inspectors must have E&O coverage.)

I am guessing but, I am sure T&P's decision to use the NACHI agreement was based upon it's defendability and limitations concerning claims; which would be totally removed if you were to use the TREC SOP.

I didn't make this ugly barrel of fish,I'm just trying to stay afloat.

[Michael R. Boyett]

George...you are exactly right. When I originally obtained my E&O thru Towers Perrin/Lexington that was not a requirement and neither my binder nor actual policy mentions that. I talked to a rep at TP this morning and she indicated that they only require that whatever SA you use to be blessed off by Joe Ferry. She did not indicate the NACHI SA was an absolute requirement. So, there appears to be continued confusion on this issue. I'll try to call Joe today to get clarification.

p.s. I've left a voice message for Joe.

[gkoehl]

Originally Posted by mboyett

George...you are exactly right. When I originally obtained my E&O thru Towers Perrin/Lexington that was not a requirement and neither my binder nor actual policy mentions that. I talked to a rep at TP this morning and she indicated that they only require that whatever SA you use to be blessed off by Joe Ferry. She did not indicate the NACHI SA was an absolute requirement. So, there appears to be continued confusion on this issue. I'll try to call Joe today to get clarification.

p.s. I've left a voice message for Joe.

Thanks for the clarification-
But, I am pondering this question-

If there is a way to limit liability\exposure, by removing one more org (legally-based upon their own departure procedure) that can slap me with a fine, suspension, or label me 'neg & incomp' (on top of claims or lawsuits)- why not?

[Michael R. Boyett]

George, I talked to Joe F and clarified the Towers Perrin SA requirement, at least to some degree. To keep from contributing to thread drift on this topic here I will communicate that to you directly.

On the departure topic...we've all used that particular provision to some degree I'm sure. I'm also sure it was never intended to allow complete departure but rather to be able to exclude certain items or systems when the case warranted. Now, like others on the board profess, if there is a 'loop hole' that will allow complete departure from the TREC SOP then, you're right, why not? But also, like John states, "My advice is be very careful about doing full departure.". I'm certainly not going to be the test case for that.

Oh...and BTW, I hand delivered mine and two other opposition letters to Sen. Shapleigh's and Sen. Brimer's office this morning. Let's hope they read them prior to the upcoming SB914 vote this week.

[Michael R. Boyett]

John C....best I can tell from the Legislature's website it was Rep Brian McCall from your area (Plano/Frisco/Allen/N. Dallas) that authored this amendment. Maybe his constituents ought to call his office's either in Plano or Austin to voice their opposition.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by mboyett

John C....best I can tell from the Legislature's website it was Rep Brian McCall from your area (Plano/Frisco/Allen/N. Dallas) that authored this amendment. Maybe his constituents ought to call his office's either in Plano or Austin to voice their opposition.

That is correct! The following link provides the recent amendments to the bill. If you view the Doc/PDF next to McCalls name you will see his work.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...80R&Bill=SB914

Also if you read page 4303 of the journal below it also shows McCall as the one sponsoring the amendment.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/hjrnl/80...DAY77FINAL.PDF

The amendment has been "Adopted" already but has it been finalized? By that I do mean mean are there further proceedings for a full House vote yet?

I would be very interested in knowing just who, or what organization(s), placed the bug in McCalls ear to propose the amendment? Is McCall associated with any insurance or real estate concerns?

[Michael R. Boyett]

Manny, I've been trying to decipher the Texas Legislature website to better understand the status of SB914 and HB3250. Best I can tell HB3250 has already passed the House and now the ball is in the Senate's court to act on SB914. Apparently Wednesday is the last day for the Senate to vote on this in this regular session of the legislature.



I also just received this as part of the TAR Legislative Liason newsletter where they are already taking credit for getting SB914 to Gov. Perry for signature. So, where does SB914 stand? I can't tell for sure but I do not think it has been sent to the Gov. yet.

Texas Association of REALTORS®
The Texas Association of REALTORS® legislative agenda is coming along very nicely. Last week, the TAR lobby team was able to successfully send several bills to the governor's desk for his final approval:

• Mortgage fraud: HB 716 by Solomons/Averitt
• Multiple Listing Service bill: HB 2188 by Paxton/Williams
• Texas Real Estate Commission Sunset Review: SB 914 by Shapleigh/Truitt
• TREC housekeeping bill: HB 1530 by Flores/Eltife

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by escanlan

Is McCall associated with any insurance or real estate concerns?

His family had an insurance company. He could care less about inspectors. He is trying to gain power in Texas and my bet is the trial lawyers are supporting him. You can bet I'll vote against him next time.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

So, where does SB914 stand?

Been sent the Gov. He cannot line item this bill. Its a done deal.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by gkoehl

If there is a way to limit liability\exposure, by removing one more org (legally-based upon their own departure procedure) that can slap me with a fine, suspension, or label me 'neg & incomp' (on top of claims or lawsuits)- why not?

If I read this right . . . . TREC can slap you with anything they want any time they want. TREC is NOT there to protect you. TREC exceeds the nature of the complaint and looks for violations to get you on. A form pagination error or some other minor thing. If your agreeable they usually go easy. If you resist they increase the penalty to get you to go along. One person had a form violation and was supposedly rude to TREC; they went for his license. He is one of the few survivors; the judge would not take his license for a form violation.

That’s just the way it works. You cannot beat them. They have a much bigger budget.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Been sent the Gov. He cannot line item this bill. Its a done deal.

Well, whether it happened last week as TAR would like us to believe or if it happened today, it's a moot point isn't it? It does now, as of 7pm, Monday appear to have passed the Senate and will be on to the Gov for signature. See: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...=SB914#vote206

[gkoehl]

I know several inspectors who had E&O before all this garbage,
Just because your cost of doing business isn't going up like the rest of Texas inspectors, please think about this and raise your prices accordingly.

Insurance is based on risk.
My auto coverage doesn't merely reflect my stellar driving record for the last 20 or so years, no, it is based on the number of accidents, thefts, etc in my area.
E&O costs will do the same.
You don't have to be sued or have a claim for your insurance to go up, if the company perceives a increase in risk, the premiums of everyone will go up.
Say hello to inspections starting at $1500

(too wore out right now to really care)

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by gkoehl

I know several inspectors who had E&O before all this garbage
(too wore out right now to really care)

E&O before the bill was a business choice that protected the inspector

E&O after the bill protect the consumer.

Big difference.

I too am worn out by this caca dung manure excrement droppings poo poo do do (the forum censures the word s ***)

[Michael R. Boyett]

George....go get some rest. This too shall pass....well, maybe that's not right but you get my drift. I know you are just getting started and this looks very daunting right now but think about it like this. If you end up with $3500/year E&O and you do 100 inspections this year then that's only $35/inspection. Now, I believe, that if you shop around you will get E&O for around $2000/year. With luck and a lot of hard work you will do 200 inspections in the next 12 months...then that's only $10/inspection. Yes, we all will have to raise our prices to stay at the profit margin we are accustomed to but we won't need to raise prices to the $1500 level. That is, unless gas prices keep going up.

[gkoehl]

Since the government of Texas seems to believe that the consumer is best served by putting the inspector in the position of CYA by filling your inspection report with miles of boilerplate comments\callouts and disclaimers.

I am going to start a new thread in the report writing (members only section) for Texas Inspectors to create and share their best disclaimers and boilerplate.


Hope to see you there