New OIR Form discussions -PART 2

[Richard Murphy]

How do we get input into the official training documentation for the new form?

Is it possible to get the training to state that Question 2 ROOF COVERING should not consider roof of porches or carports that are attached only to the fascia or wall of the hosed structure. This exclusion exists for Roof Geometry. It doesn't make sense that these roofs would be excluded in one section, yet be included in a different section.

If all the "accepted" training documents were so worded, can we can the underwriters to acknowledge the accepted practice?

[Michael J. Meeker]

ha ha ha aha aha ah.

You want answers ha ha ha.

I truley wish you the best of luck. Let me know how it works out

[Preston L. Halstead]

John?

[Preston L. Halstead]

Show up to the west palm meeting and we will discuss. Mike?

[John Shishilla]

Send me what you want in the training. The Nachi Class will need updating.

[Richard Murphy]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

ha ha ha aha aha ah.

You want answers ha ha ha.

I truley wish you the best of luck. Let me know how it works out

Meeker,

This is meant as a serious discussion for serious professionals - please feel free to ignore it.

[Michael J. Meeker]

Thanks Mr. New guy

[Richard Murphy]

Originally Posted by phalstead

Show up to the west palm meeting and we will discuss. Mike?

Unfortunately previous commitments preclude my attendance - I will try to get some verbage to John - Should be something simple like inserting the Roof Geometry exclusion statement into the Roof Covering section.

I have sent an e-mail to Bill York and will also send one to Jose Uz of the Construction Exam School and try to get a response from them on their thoughts into adding something in their curriculums in this regard.

John, who I believe appears to command a level of profession respect in this arena, may be able to provide a strong voice in acheiving this obective through messages to Bill York and others involved in the professional training aspect of our industry.

What say you John? Can I get your buy-in to help me pursue this goal?

[Richard Murphy]

Originally Posted by jshishilla

Send me what you want in the training. The Nachi Class will need updating.

John,

I will try to get some verbiage to you, but in essence it should merely revolve around consistency - If certain roof structures are excluded for consideration in one part of the form, then it should also be excluded for consideration in another part of the form.

What we are talking about is exluding the requirement for proof of FBC compliance for roof structures for carports and patios (unenclosed space) that are connected to the fascia or wall. This would appear to be an achievable goal - in light that Citizen's, a major user of the reports, has excluded these structures from coverage beginning with the new year.

We missed our opportunity to impact the context of the report form. We should concentrate our efforts to seeing where we can make an impact in this process - and the only avenue for us to offer our opinions and hopefully gain some support from those in a position to work with our input in developing SOPs and accepted practices.

[Michael C. Wagner]

This was at least some of the thinking behind Question #2 during the creation of the new form...

"In the two page version of the form we simply asked if the roof was FBC 2001 or newer, this was too little detail.
In the current form we expanded the section to be more specific, unfortunately we were too specific and
arbitrarily deleted consideration for other roof types that also met the intent for mitigation credits. The changes
recommended here have a specific purpose, to eliminate the ambiguous and subjective term “Predominant”
and to indicate all roof types in use with the ability to document the compliance of each. Since all carrier require
elevation photos of the structure, anyone that wants to use predominance can, any carrier that wants to be
more specific concerning a non‐compliant roof that that could be less than**predominate but comprise a major
part of the main roof structure and could contribute to a substantial claim, also has the option to consider this.
From an inspection standpoint, we are there only to document the existing features, since the roof is the major
cause of claims, all roof covering in use should be mitigated or in compliance with the mitigation measures
outlined in the study."

http://www.floir.com/siteDocuments/R...072011Addl.pdf

[Richard Murphy]

Originally Posted by mwagner

This was at least some of the thinking behind Question #2 during the creation of the new form...

"In the two page version of the form we simply asked if the roof was FBC 2001 or newer, this was too little detail.
In the current form we expanded the section to be more specific, unfortunately we were too specific and
arbitrarily deleted consideration for other roof types that also met the intent for mitigation credits. The changes
recommended here have a specific purpose, to eliminate the ambiguous and subjective term “Predominant”
and to indicate all roof types in use with the ability to document the compliance of each. Since all carrier require
elevation photos of the structure, anyone that wants to use predominance can, any carrier that wants to be
more specific concerning a non‐compliant roof that that could be less than**predominate but comprise a major
part of the main roof structure and could contribute to a substantial claim, also has the option to consider this.
From an inspection standpoint, we are there only to document the existing features, since the roof is the major
cause of claims, all roof covering in use should be mitigated or in compliance with the mitigation measures
outlined in the study."

http://www.floir.com/siteDocuments/R...072011Addl.pdf

I am not arguing that all other roof coverings should be excluded - but as in the section that I have made bold - the intent for mitigation credits - Since the roof structures on unenclosed spaces that are only connected to the fascia or wall of the host structure - are NOT intended to effect mitigation credits for roof geometry - I posit that THE INTENT to NOT CONSIDER THESE STRUCTURES IN THE DETERMINATION OF GEOMETRY would also extend to the roof coverings OF THESE STRUCTURES.

Again, to clarify, I am only proposing exluding roof covers for items already excluded from consideration in another section of the form.

[Michael C. Wagner]

I don't disagree with you, Richard. I only posted it because it's the closest thing to an "interpretation" from someone that had a role in writing the form that I've seen. In fact, an argument can be made that all roof coverings "in use" means the predominant roof covering AND roof coverings less than predominant but still a "major part of the main roof structure".

I'm with you on this. It needs to be clearly stated in all the training docs.

[John Shishilla]

Originally Posted by rmurphy1

John,

I will try to get some verbiage to you, but in essence it should merely revolve around consistency - If certain roof structures are excluded for consideration in one part of the form, then it should also be excluded for consideration in another part of the form.

What we are talking about is exluding the requirement for proof of FBC compliance for roof structures for carports and patios (unenclosed space) that are connected to the fascia or wall. This would appear to be an achievable goal - in light that Citizen's, a major user of the reports, has excluded these structures from coverage beginning with the new year.

We missed our opportunity to impact the context of the report form. We should concentrate our efforts to seeing where we can make an impact in this process - and the only avenue for us to offer our opinions and hopefully gain some support from those in a position to work with our input in developing SOPs and accepted practices.

I am always open to constructive conversation about how it can be better and what we can do to step in that direction.

[Steven Taylor]

It would appear that "our" voices (home inspectors) don't carry much weight with the OIR and the insurance industry based on the last revision and our attempts to collectively offer input that were not taken into consideration. With that said, our best hope for change is through the legislature and changing statutes to force the OIR and the industry to do the right things. The only way to do that is through effective lobbying. Just my thoughts - I sure opinions will vary on this.

[Richard Murphy]

John,

I sent a sample write up to your company website's contact portal - hope you got it.