TREC E&O Form?

[John McKenna]

Where can I find the new form for showing proof
of E&O insurance to TREC?

[Michael R. Boyett]

Right here... http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/form...fInsurance.pdf

Interesting! Look at the bottom of the form where it says:
"provides for professional liability insurance for the above named Inspector for claims for property damage or bodily injury, regardless of whether the claim arises from a negligence claim or a contract claim;"
There was a school of thought going through the last Inspector's Committee that questioned whether the legislature has put a law into place that cannot be met. In other words, there may be no E&O policy that provides the above. I don't know if that's true or not but it would be interesting to determine. I think I shall pose that question to my E&O provider....i.e. does it insure for the above?

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

"provides for professional liability insurance for the above named Inspector for claims for property damage or bodily injury, regardless of whether the claim arises from a negligence claim or a contract claim;

Another example of TREC staff writing rules where the statute is not clear. The statute does not have that language and neither did the Commissioners vote. They simply voted to interpret it as E&O with no defintion of E&O.

TREC violates the law more than inspectors. Nothing that can be done however. Realtors tell the Governor who to appoint; they are all TAR people; TAR people hire the administrator. Staff does what they are told by the Administrator.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Another example of TREC staff writing rules where the statute is not clear. The statute does not have that language and neither did the Commissioners vote. They simply voted to interpret it as E&O with no defintion of E&O.

TREC violates the law more than inspectors. Nothing that can be done however. Realtors tell the Governor who to appoint; they are all TAR people; TAR people hire the administrator. Staff does what they are told by the Administrator.

John, maybe I am off base here, but surely that form is talking about GL not E&O

Regards

Gerry

[Michael R. Boyett]

Gerry, if you haven't kept up with it here is essentially what happened. During the waning hours of the last state legislature an amendment was tacked onto a Texas Real Estate Commission 'housekeeping' bill. The amendment was to require $100,000 of 'liability insurance' for Texas inspectors to protect against violations of our SOP. Well, since the amendment was literally in the 11th hour then there was not time to fight it and it was passed into law. That then required TREC to implement the new law and to try to define exactly what the sleazeball Representative was trying to do when he attached the amendment. Barring any difference of opinion from the state AG that is being waited for, TREC is pretty much forced into requiring the E&O. So, no...that form definitely pertains to E&O.

[Barry Adair]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

John, maybe I am off base here, but surely that form is talking about GL not E&O

Regards

Gerry

Gerry,

TREC in it's misinterpretation of the law, as usual, decided differently and then after their ruling and having it brought to their attention by inspectors that NO Insurance in the world would cover unlawful acts decided to query the AG, that's where it is now yet TREC is still mandating E&O of all new and renewing inspectors.

Read on:
http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspecto...yInsurance.asp

[John McKenna]

It says that Texas home inspectors must provide proof of E&O
insurance on the accepted FORM.

Has anyone seen that from, so an inspector can submitt their E&O
proof of insurance?

[Michael R. Boyett]

John...did you read my post #2?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mboyett

John...did you read my post #2?

OK... I see it now. Thanks

[John Cahill]

In the 1 1/2 years the following has occurred:

SoP rejected with an order from Commissioners to address safety and code with specificity and to hold the inspector accountable.

Past Inspector Committee leadership (14 years consecutive) reappointed to serve the Commissioners. They get along with staff very well

Professional insurance sneaked in; TREC interprets it as E&O

Inspector committee dissolved by statute.

"get along with TREC" leadership consulted in writing of reduced educational hours even though the committee no longer exists. Public debate omitted via "emergency rule" procedure.

Statute is changed from 448 hours to "up to 448" hours. TREC decreases hours and makes fast tracking easier. (in process)

"get along" leaders will be formally reappointed this October.

Predicting a Houston boy will become Chairman and teaching for an educational provider

Such is life in Texas.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Predicting a Houston boy will become Chairman and teaching for an educational provider

Yes, and I'm sure he will be a "Champion" for all Texas HI's

[rdawes]

John (Cahill),

How does the change that requires education and multi-year experience make fast tracking easier? Looks much harder to me.

See the bright yellow box:
http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspector/default.asp

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by rdawes

How does the change that requires education and multi-year experience make fast tracking easier? Looks much harder to me.

Prior law required 448 hours of education. Period. Not more; not less. Experience could count for some of that.

New law requires experience. Instead of hours OR experience it is hours AND experience.

The trick is the old required 448 hours. The new requires NO TO EXCEED hours AND experience.

Theoretically the commission could require 1 hour of education and 1 hour of experience due to the "NOT TO EXCEED" language (or none for that matter). That gives TREC great leeway in balancing supply and demand to suit TAR and the schools.

Old way
128 core
320 fast track additional hours with option for experience.
= 448

New way
128 core
200 fast track additional hours
120 experience (ride along; suffice for experience)

Total hours still 448 BUT 120 are now ride along.

To get a license you only have to go to school 328 hours in instead of 448.

You can ride along on weekends.

Thus it is easier to get a license.

Is it better? Well its hard to argue that the experience is not worthwhile. On the other hand they carved it out of the educational hours.

It will be easier for a school to promote a 328 hour class than a 448 hour class. Its a 25% reduction in classroom training hours.

What would I like?

The same as a Texas Broker. 900 hours and 2 years experience. You could fill in the 452 additional hours with IRC code certification. You could create a special sponsor license. If the sponsor gets in trouble he looses his sponsor license but not his pro license (right to work). Fees could go up so trainees could be paid a decent wage. Experienced inspectors protect the public. TAR wants CHEAP inspections and complete delegation of liability.

I would settle for the Broker requirements to reduced like the HI however.

Its about pumping out inspectors with insurance. Keep em inexperienced; set em up to assume liability and keep schools going. Oh ya, justify more TREC staff in order to protect the public.

[Michael R. Boyett]

I agree with what John says and I think the issue goes even beyond that. Here is my interpretation of the chain of events:

1. The last state legislature changed the fast track method to include the requirement for both education and experience. No one seems to know why they felt that change was needed.
2. TREC implemented an 'emergency' rule mid-summer to support that new law.
3. Current students and several education providers screamed bloody murder as it was now difficult to impossible to meet the new rules.
4. TREC staff apparently conferred, off-line and without public input, with one or more of the proposed new Inspectors Advisory Committee members (who also happens to teach) to modify those rules they had just implemented to allow classroom hours to substitute for the experience hours. It seems as if the education hours will be allowed to count for both education and experience. So, the latest proposed rule says that 120 hours of classroom training (or accompanying a licensed HI) equals 5-7 years experience! By the way, those are apparently the same 120 hours that have always been required, not a new additional 120 hours. You can view the latest rule proposal at http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/arti...ule_200709.pdf and see Section B.iii for the experience subsitution proposal.
5. This latest rule change will be presented at the 10/8 TREC Commission meeting and will likely be taken under advisement and will then be posted on the Texas Register for notification and public comment and will then be accepted as the rule.

In effect, TREC and the soon-to-be installed new Inspectors Committee ignored the legislature's mandate of education + experience and proposes to do business as usual or less than usual.

[John Cahill]

You can expect more thanks to me. I asked if I could have more than 1 ride along go with me on an actual job. You know, maybe two. But then if the home is vacant and the buyer not present why not 10?

I asked if a background check was needed before I took ride alongs into occupied homes.

TREC reply was "We did not consider that." Expect a THIRD rule to be posted with some type of restrictions.

Sorry to ask those questions but I foresee 25 ride alongs to a vacant home and I charge em all $100 each. $$$$$$$$$$ That's an idea some might "champion".