Michigan home inspector licensing meeting on July 23, 2008.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

I have been really busy lately so I just now read this thread.
I do, in respect, have a question for Nick.

According to our own NACHI COE:
The InterNACHI member shall not engage in any practices that could be damaging to the public or bring discredit to the home inspection industry.

Does it not require NACHI to fight horrible home inspection bills?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Hello! Nick are you there?

[James H. Bushart]

Compromise best avenue for home inspection bill

EDITORIAL



Legislation concerning home inspectors was sailing through the state legislature until a last-minute amendment stalled it. However, this looks like a simple case where a little compromise can turn the bill into a win-win situation for all involved.

The Michigan Association of Home Inspectors helped to craft House Bill 6088, which was introduced by Rep. Frank Accavitti Jr., D-Eastpointe, in May. Originally, the bill would have required that home inspectors be licensed and have a minimum amount of training.
While the association supports the licensing of inspectors, a last-minute amendment has members worried about the future of the industry. Critics say the amendment shifts all the liability to the home inspector for anything that goes wrong with the home for an indefinite amount of time.
Association spokesmen note home inspectors carry insurance to protect them in situations where they miss finding a problem with a home, but contracts between the home buyer and inspector generally stipulate to what extent the inspector can be held liable.
Inspectors agree the increased liability would definitely increase the cost of the insurance they carry, and that cost would be passed on to the consumer.
The bill began as a way to give consumers more protection by regulating the profession more and requiring inspectors to be licensed, trained and able to meet certain standards. Inspectors now fear that if the bill is passed, most consumers won't be able to pay for the increased price of an inspection.
In addition to Accavitti, bill sponsors include Oakland County Reps. John Stakoe, R-Highland Township, Tim Melton, D-Auburn Hills, and Paul Condino, D-Southfield.
The intention of the bill has strong merit, particularly in this time of high mortgage foreclosures and plummeting housing values.
Prospective home buyers want to take advantage of the good deals out there in the housing market, but they don't want to be taken. That's only reasonable. And that's why a good home inspector is needed to help a buyer decide if the house is worth what the seller is asking or what the buyer is willing to pay.
The bill is stalled in the House as Accavitti and representatives of the inspector's association try to work out a compromise.
This is a wise course of action.
Increasing the requirements for more training to get a home inspector's license only makes sense.
What is unreasonable is the open-ended liability that the inspector could incur and the accompanying high fees he would have to charge to cover his insurance premiums under the current bill.
Some type of limit on liability is called for, possibly more than just refunding the inspection fee. A 10 percent or 20 percent refund of the cost of the undiscovered repair might be appropriate and should be studied.
To help ensure more accurate home inspections, tying poorly conducted inspections to a person's license also is in order.
If liability fears raise fees too high, then that's not helping the consumer, particularly in a down economy and a down housing market.
But compromise surely is in order and should quite easily be attained here.
We urge it.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/080508/opi_20080805391.shtml

Too bad the used house salesman's lobby in Kansas did not give thier legislators time to think it through like they did, here.

[Michael Roberson]

Thank you Jim for that info...

[Vince Santos]

I'm pleased to read there is some logical thought being put into this proposed bill. While I'm not opposed to licensing in general I was heated over the ridiculous amendment.

Thank you for the information.

[Michael Bazzo, CMI]

I found this post over at I N today by Randy Aldering. It appears there was false reports regarding the Huizenga bill.......

08-02-2008, 10:55 PM
Randy Aldering vbmenu_register("postmenu_52379", true);
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 145


Re: URGENT - ALL MICHIGAN HOME INSPECTORS
At last report, the 'strict liability' language had been removed. Unfortunately, that was premature, and the language remains in the bill. The bill remains on the Michigan House calendar, but it is not known if there is any intent to do any thing more with this bill this session, or not. If the bill moves, substitute wording for the 'strict liability' language, developed by Rep. Bill Huizenga's office, may be adopted as a replacement. There is no guarantee of this. There is more work we would like to see on this bill.

Recently, due to errant communications originating from misinformed sources, we have had to work very hard in order to keep communications open with several very hot legislators who might be inclined to 'correct' home inspectors - not the source, but MichAHI and home inspectors doing business in Michigan. We don't need the extra trouble.
__________________
Randy Aldering, RHI CHI
Housesmithe Home Inspection