New wind mit form and OIR

[John Shishilla]

Pass Along to your membership to take Action, today




From


Wayne Bertsch







Many of your members perform Wind Mitigation Inspections, OIR (via statute changes to 627.711) has had several workshops related to changing the form. Tomorrow, the Florida Cabinet sitting as the Financial Services Commission, will be voting on the final changes. Many home inspectors, as well as myself represent the Council, have expressed concern with the Form. In an effort to continue expressing concerns, please ask your Members to send an email to each of the Cabinet Aides sharing concern.

Below, I have included the contact information to the relevant cabinet aide and also suggested comments.

Thank you,

Wayne Bertsch



******** TO BE SENT TO MEMBERSHIPS *********


The Florida Cabinet, sitting as the Financial Services Commission, will be taking up for Approval the changes to the Uniform Wind Mitigation Form OIR-B1-1802. Many licensed home inspectors perform these inspections as a service, however the changes being made to the form have been raising concerns among the profession. Several home inspectors have attended the OIR Workshops, testifying and making recommendations, however many of those have not been addressed in the Form being considered by the Commission.

In an effort to share concern, please email an appeal (TODAY!) to the members of the Financial Services Commission (i.e. the Florida Cabinet) who meet tomorrow, Tuesday, December 6, beginning at 9:30am. Their cabinet aides email contacts are below, please take a moment to share your concern regarding the changes being made to the FORM OIR-B1-1802. Suggested comments are below, however please edit them specific to your own experience. Thank you in advance for your advocacy.

Governor Rick Scott
Mark Slager - Mark.Slager@eog.myflorida.com Rachel Goodson - Rachel.Goodson@eog.myflorida.com

Attorney General Pam Bondi
Rob Johnson - Rob.Johnson@myfloridalegal.com Erin Sumpter - Erin.Sumpter@myfloridalegal.com

CFO Jeff Atwater
Robert Tornillo - Robert.Tornillo@myfloridacfo.com Abby Vail - Abby.Vail@myfloridacfo.com

Agriculture Commissioner
Jim Boxold - Jim.Boxold@freshfromflorida.com Brooke McKnight - Brooke.McKnight@freshfromflorida.com

Dear Cabinet Member-

I would like to express my concern with respect to Agenda Item 3 of the Financial Services Commission Requesting Approval for Adoption of Amendments to Proposed Rule 69O-170.0155, implementing Legislative changes (FS 627.711) made to Form OIR-B1-1802, the "Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection."

The proposed changes insist on documentation that may not always be available because it is either not kept by a particular local government, time constraints don't allow research (e.g. short sales) or there is an additional cost that may not be covered.

There has been additional language included allowing insurers to ask follow up questions, but at whose expense is this intended - the customer, the inspector or the insurer? This is form addition is not addressed in FS 627.711.

The requirement for photos is also not included in the statute changes. These photos are have been misinterpreted by unqualified personnel. Photos should only be required to document that the structure has been inspected. Anything otherwise is open to interpretation and doesn't or may not support the intent of the statute.

An unintended consequence has been using the Form OIR-B1-1802 to base an insurance quote for a resale. If this is and additional intended use of the form by real estate and insurance, then form should include the name of the client and not necessarily the property owner. If "Insurance Quote" inspections are required, then consideration should be paid for by the insurance company.

I would respectfully request that as a Member of the Financial Services Commission, that you reject the adoption of Form OIR-B1-1802 and request that amendments be made to the form and to also follow the statute 627.711 in regards to what should be addressed by the form.

Thank you in advance for your time and favorable consideration,

[John Shishilla]

I may not personally agree with all the comments, but here is your chance to make a difference.

[Michael J. Meeker]

About time we get rid of those deadly picture requirements which was wrongly included in our current form. Please correct me if I am wrong but the above info is just saying take a picture of the house to prove we were there .


Now that would make some sense and likely save someones life and end the misinterpreting that has been taking place by the idiot underwriters.


Please, Please, Please if I am seeing this correctly lets make damn sure the mistake of requiring pictures is removed this time for the benefit of all involved. Please, please, please.

[Michael J. Meeker]

I reccomend adding this.

The requirement for photos is also not included in the statute changes. These photos are have been misinterpreted by unqualified personnel. Photos should only be required to document that the structure has been inspected. Anything otherwise is open to interpretation and doesn't or may not support the intent of the statute. These photo requirements that were wrongly placed on our current form and this proposed form are also deadly dangerous and no attic should be climbed around in to take pictures of things that can be verified safely from the attic hatch. Someone is going to die for sure trying to take pictures for folks with no experience to verify. The photos are also constantly used to fraudulently get credits that are not earned.

[Michael J. Meeker]

here is the first problem I had:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

mark.slager@eog.myflorida.com

[William C. Chandler]

Why can't we sign an on-line petition for Wayne to present? As Mike pointed out, many of these email accts are suspended prior to "hot" legislation.

[John Shishilla]

Originally Posted by wchandler

Why can't we sign an on-line petition for Wayne to present? As Mike pointed out, many of these email accts are suspended prior to "hot" legislation.

Because we are all not going to agree on the petition.

Example: Mike wants to do away with the picture requirements. I know that the reports have improved since the requirement was added. How would you verify work without them?

I think trying to remove the picture requirement is a futile effort and those who do are laughed at by everyone else in the industry. Who decides what is on the petition?

On another note, inspectors need to stay out of the discount business. We are here to observe and report and should not be speaking about(as a group) discounts associated with the form. We should remain neutral on the political and financial sides of these forms. We hurt our own credibility when we comment because we usually do not have all of the facts.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by jshishilla

Because we are all not going to agree on the petition.

Example: Mike wants to do away with the picture requirements. I know that the reports have improved since the requirement was added. How would you verify work without them?

I think trying to remove the picture requirement is a futile effort and those who do are laughed at by everyone else in the industry. Who decides what is on the petition?

On another note, inspectors need to stay out of the discount business. We are here to observe and report and should not be speaking about(as a group) discounts associated with the form. We should remain neutral on the political and financial sides of these forms. We hurt our own credibility when we comment because we usually do not have all of the facts.

The picture requirement making the forms better is simply not true.
First you have the agents, who know nothing about what they are looking at followed by the underwriters, who by all accounts, know even less.
If the pictures are so great, how about a 12 picture form, you insert the pictures and the labels are already there?

[John Shishilla]

Watch the cabinet meeting now http://thefloridachannel.org/about-tfc/who-we-are/

Web channel 7

[John Shishilla]

From the broadcast
Thirty one recommendations to reduce the size of citizens

1.5 million policies with an exposure of 1/2 trillion

5 1/2 million in reserves with 11 billion of liquidity

[John Shishilla]

Making proposals to reduce coverage

[Michael J. Meeker]

Originally Posted by evandeven

The picture requirement making the forms better is simply not true.
First you have the agents, who know nothing about what they are looking at followed by the underwriters, who by all accounts, know even less.
If the pictures are so great, how about a 12 picture form, you insert the pictures and the labels are already there?

Absolutely correct Sir

[John Shishilla]

The governor is suggesting that we should not be insuring in areas where no other insurance is available for new construction.

The answer is politics

[John Shishilla]

Citizens wants to evaluate wind mit credits as a study. $1billion

ROI on the re-inspection program is 300%

[John Shishilla]

Five statutory changes. To reduce citizens.