KCRAR article

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by gfarnsworth

Nick, you will not believe this article. I hope you read it. James, Dan, all Kansas inspectors look at this. The BS is flowing already. Mis-information abounds. I just hate the "WE" term.

http://kcrarnews.frogpond.com/DispAr...TICLE_ID=22981

Here is what I got when I clicked on the link for this article.


The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.

The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes. Error Occurred While Processing Request Invalid CFML construct found on line 379 at column 78.

ColdFusion was looking at the following text: background
The CFML compiler was processing:

• An expression beginning with highLight, on line 379, column 10.This message is usually caused by a problem in the expressions structure.
• The body of a cfoutput tag beginning on line 238, column 2.
• The body of a cfoutput tag beginning on line 238, column 2.
• The body of a cfoutput tag beginning on line 238, column 2.

Resources:

• Enable Robust Exception Information to provide greater detail about the source of errors. In the Administrator, click Debugging & Logging > Debug Output Settings, and select the Robust Exception Information option.
• Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
• Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem.

Browser Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.64Remote Address 75.69.175.250Referrer http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=29239Date/Time 29-May-08 04:23 AM

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

I got on the site just perfectly about 9:30 PM

Ain't this amazing

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Honestly and truly, those inspectors presently working with RE salesmen should begin to prepare the agent for the post-HI law report to eliminate the gasps of shock and dismay.

With the KAR marketing this $10,000 home inspector warranty they purchased from your congress...you have no choice but to point out the darkest side to every possibility related to every defect. Not too many agents are going to be ready for that.

I think it would be funnier not to prepare the Realtors. Just the look on their face when you hand them a 100+ page report will be priceless.
But that is just me.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

It would even bring me a bigger laugh is when the Realtor realizes the report is printed on both sides of the paper.
Taking a quote from a great philosopher, Larry The Cable Guy:
"I do not care who you are but that is funny now"

[dharris]

Keep on sending all those letters stating you don't need anybody to regulate you.
Keep on pointing fingers at the other guy, claiming he is looking out for his own interests.
Keep on a sending letters stating you can get the answers for the NHIE off the internet.
Keep on a doing all the above, instead of getting together and agreeing on what is workable for the inspector in the other states that don't have Lic. and all will be well.

Quick question. How many attorneys are willing to take a case where the max they can collect is 10,000??

[Nick Gromicko]

Dan Harris writes:

Quick question. How many attorneys are willing to take a case where the max they can collect is 10,000??

Dan is 100% correct. Excellent point.

[rmaday]

What was the HIs liability before the new $10k rule?

[dharris]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Dan Harris writes:

Dan is 100% correct. Excellent point.

Just send my bonus points for free nacho membership to stevie wonder, opps i mean meyer

[Paul Sabados]

Quick question. How many attorneys are willing to take a case where the max they can collect is 10,000??

Wake up people, you all are missing the final outcome. The 10K liability is only the STARTING point. That is the amount as of today. The whole point of the 3/2 board concept is the crash site. The Trial Attorney's wanted 100K as the STARTING point. As soon as the Board has been assembled and after the first meeting, there will be a motion to either form a committee to study whether the 10K liability sufficient or on the seedier side, the KAR rep, the attorney rep and one slime ball slug will vote yes and request a change to a higher limit.

If the Board consists of one RE rep and one attorney rep, or even two RE reps, the HI's in KS will getted raked over the coals to a higher degree than what the blue print legislation promotes. I predict that 1 mill. liabitlity will be the standard before the rural guys fall into play in 2011

Paul

[Paul Sabados]

Another point to watch,

STANDARDIZED inspection reporting. I heard many times from many agents and primarily from the BROKERS.

"Why don't you guys all get together and use some sort of STANDARDIZED form. It would make our lives so much easier" They keep trying it in NC, you KNOW they're going to attempt the same here.

Paul

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Dan Harris writes:

Dan is 100% correct. Excellent point.

dan is a dope and his lack of general knowledge and common sense is well documented throughout several message boards. But Nick, you have no excuse.

Let me dumb it down a bit so dan can explain it to you.

Today, the Kansas inspector can legally (and the Kansas courts will continue to uphold his right to) negotiate by contract a limit to his liability not to exceed his inspection fee.

On 7/1/09 (with my apologies to the illiterate Luke Bell of the KAR), he will be forced to raise that liabilty to $10,000 without the realistic ability to commensurately raise his fee.

What lawyer will not encourage his clients, after reading the KAR's advertising of this new $10,000 guarantee on each home inspection, to collect on every defect found by the client and not noted in the report by the inspector? Lawsuits are not the only means available.

If I were a Kansas citizen, I would simply file a written claim (and complaint) against the inspector with the state board and have them collect it for me. I would address it to one of the two real estate salesmen sitting on the board, however, to ensure it got the right attention.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rmaday

What was the HIs liability before the new $10k rule?

The inspection fee.

[Nick Gromicko]

Give me till next week and I'll have Mountain Warranty cover KS InterNACHI members up to $10K... then of course since the law prohibits inspectors from limiting their liability to less than 10K, they can limit their liability to no more than $10K. Both sides of $10K covered.

Every InterNACHI member in KS can sleep well now.

[Steven C. Meyer]

Gee, thanks Dan. My most favorite words:
Free
Senior discount

Gotta make that SS check strech as far as possible, especially with those $100 inspections!

Originally Posted by dharris

Just send my bonus points for free nacho membership to stevie wonder, opps i mean meyer

[dharris]

dan is a dope and his lack of general knowledge and common sense is well documented throughout several message boards. But Nick, you have no excuse.

Let me dumb it down a bit so dan can explain it to you.

Today, the Kansas inspector can legally (and the Kansas courts will continue to uphold his right to) negotiate by contract a limit to his liability not to exceed his inspection fee.

LOL Busshy.. gotta get with times, this is 2008, selling a home inspection is not like selling hearing aids