New wind mitigation inspection form and proposed rule changes released by FL OIR.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.org/wind-mit-update.htm

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Originally Posted by gromicko

http://www.nachi.org/wind-mit-update.htm

And please sir Nick, your thoughts regarding this... Thanks for your help but it is looking kind of hopeless.

[Ed Bancroft]

At least they didn't take out "other qualified entity" from the form. So now the form needs to filter down to insurance companys and they need to be convinced to accept NACHI inspectors.

[Steve Taylor]

"At least they didn't take out "other qualified entity" from the form. So now the form needs to filter down to insurance companys and they need to be convinced to accept NACHI inspectors."


Good luck with that.

[Ed Bancroft]

Hey be optimistic!
Hows the old saying go "Optimism Killed the Cat" or something like that.

[Steve Taylor]

The insurance industry will not accept anyone other that the "qualified" inspectors noted in the Florida Statutes sec. 627.711. That statute mandates who the insurance industry "shall" except reports from and who they "may" accept reports from. There is way too much money involved and the insurance industry would prefer that the wind mitigation inspection go away. The only way that the insurance industry will accept the NACHI credential would be if the state legislators added that credential to the statute the covers wind mits (FS-627.711) and specifically required the insurance industry to accept our credentials.

Sorry for the dose of reality.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by staylor7

The insurance industry will not accept anyone other that the "qualified" inspectors noted in the Florida Statutes sec. 627.711. That statute mandates who the insurance industry "shall" except reports from and who they "may" accept reports from. There is way too much money involved and the insurance industry would prefer that the wind mitigation inspection go away. The only way that the insurance industry will accept the NACHI credential would be if the state legislators added that credential to the statute the covers wind mits (FS-627.711) and specifically required the insurance industry to accept our credentials.

Sorry for the dose of reality.

Thanks Steve, your version of reality matches mine, I don't see any good news here for Home Inspectors, which is kind of boggling if you have read the draft of the proposed rule change.

Maybe licensing will change that perception

Regards

Gerry

[Nick Gromicko]

Ah ye of little faith. Didn't we hear this same doubt about www.nachi.org/4point.htm before we got it approved?

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Ah ye of little faith. Didn't we hear this same doubt about www.nachi.org/4point.htm before we got it approved?

For what it is worth I have in the past had 1 insurance company accept a wind mit form with not an ICC building inspector certification, not my MSFH # but the NACHI #. I will no longer be issueing any once this form comes out though, unless something changes. Oh by the way, the form is even more of a joke now, especially for resales that are vacant, all you guys who are doing these along with home inspections better have that listing agent meet you out there with that 6 year old permit for the roof. I'm sure he'll have no problem getting that from the owner or the bank!

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Ah ye of little faith. Didn't we hear this same doubt about www.nachi.org/4point.htm before we got it approved?

Nick, me and several hundred other inspectors will be happy to be wrong

Regards

Gerry

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Anyone have a date when this form goes into effect?

[gbeaumont]

Hi Joe, according to the accompanying rule change proposal this does not come up for discussion again until Dec 21st 2009. It is worth remembering that changes to this form have been discussed for over a year now.

Regards

Gerry

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

Hi Joe, according to the accompanying rule change proposal this does not come up for discussion again until Dec 21st 2009. It is worth remembering that changes to this form have been discussed for over a year now.

Regards

Gerry

At the very least it is interesting to know that over a year of asking the wrong people the wrong questions resulted in the wrong form. Nothing less than moronic and nothing more either.

[Richard Murphy]

I especially am fond of the part where pictures will be required for items 1 through 9 - Item 8 is SWR - I would like for them to explain how they expect to get a picture of this!

[Nick Gromicko]

Another meeting in Tallahassee on December 21st.