Re-inspection Company Recommends Carriers to Stop Re-Inspections

[Christopher B. Thomas]

Thomas Enterprising is in a position to profit from insurance reinspections. I think it is important that I start off by saying that so that anyone who reads this understands what I've written.

Insurance companies should stop doing reinspections. If they would like to fix the problem they are currently having with improper wind mitigation credits the solution is easy. At the policies next renewal they should not accept the old wind mitigation form. In order to receive when mitigation credits the policyholder would have to get a new inspection. This new inspection would comply with the current standards of wind mitigation and could be reviewed by the underwriting department of the insurance carrier in order to make sure that the credits are accurate and have been proven through photographs.

No one can disagree that wind mitigation done three years ago was less accurate than what is done today. Everyone has learned as time has gone on. It's understandable why an insurance carrier would want to do reinspections. Actually it's admirable that an insurance company would care enough about their clients to pay for a service that qualifies their client for a discount.

When a policyholder receives a notice stating that their insurance rates are increasing their rightfully upset. If the increase is due to the fact that they were receiving unwarranted when mitigation credits it does not change the emotional state of the policyholder.

The intention of the insurance company was to take the most convenient route for the policyholder to receive an accurate premium. If policyholders had a better understanding of credits, reinspection programs would work perfectly. That is not the case in the real world. As an insurance carrier, in order to protect your image and satisfy your clients you will receive a much greater return on your investment by expiring the policyholder's old wind mitigation form and providing a $100 credit to help offset the cost of getting a new wind mitigation inspection.

I would suggest providing a 180 day window for the policyholder to get a new wind mitigation inspection. If within this time period a new wind mitigation is performed, the underwriting department of the carrier can decide if the new report meets the requirements to prove the credits. If it does the mitigation credits are applied and everyone moves on.

What's great about this is that it allows the insurance carrier to show what the policy would cost without any wind mitigation credits. If the if the policy premium increases by $200 but still is much less than what the policy would cost without any credits easier for the policyholder to understand they're still getting a discount.

I have yet to talk to one insurance agent who has felt satisfied about a reinspection program. Most agents feel that the programs are making it very difficult to maintain the loyalty of their clients.

What insurance company would not want to fix the problem they have with inaccurate wind mitigation credits? All of them would, it is a huge problem for insurance companies who already operate on thin margins. By expiring the old wind mitigations the insurance carrier would be able to recoup 100% of the inaccurate credits with no cost.

What are your thoughts?

[Michael J. Meeker]

Photos are a huge part of the problem. the photos requirement should be removed immediately. what should matter is the qualifications of the inspector. we can verify most things from the safety of the hatch. s*** bags use photos to perpetrate fraud good inspectors will get hurt trying to accommodate insurance companies request. how come no 1 can see that photos prove it absolutely nothing not even the house that they're supposed to be in.

[Christopher B. Thomas]

Michael,

In a perfect world the word of a licensed individual should be trusted 100% of the time. This world is far from perfect.

I would never turn in an inspection report without photographs, even if they are not required. You ought to find something else to take a stand against because photos are never going away for wind mitigation. For every inspection done right on the word of a contractor, ten will be done wrong.

[Michael J. Meeker]

Originally Posted by cthomas

For every inspection done right on the word of a contractor, ten will be done wrong.

By someone that is NOT a contractor

[Russell J. Hensel]

Chris - Talking with you at length this weekend was eye opening and entertaining. You seem to have a great grasp on the legislation side of the program. I am always open to listening to new ideas, listening to the more experienced person and learning from what they have to say.

Your idea above seems rather simple and yet practical. I would agree with what you say. Now the harder issue is how does it happen, or how do we make it happen. For people who do not know your position, you make a rather nice living at the wind mitigation inspection arena and have for several years. You have the zest for quality and the drive for a quality product when it seems hard to find capable workers in some areas.

Now that I agree with you idea, how do we make it come to fruition and do you REALLY think it can happen? Please fill in the blanks.

The basement inspection business is working out kinda slow but the furnace inspections are BOOOMING...

[John Shishilla]

Thomas would know who are doing the inspections correctly and who are doing them wrong, more that almost all. The funnier part is he is the only one I know that would be honest about it. Contractors were allowed to do them without training, now HIs have to have training, who do you think will be/is doing them correctly?

[Michael J. Meeker]

Not the used hearing aid salesmen that just got grandfathered in.

I would assume a larger portion of Architects, General Contractors, and Engineers would have an overall greater understanding of construction practices. As opposed to a home inspector who took a couple hour course.

Just look at the requirements for becoming an Architect, General Contractor, or Engineer as compared to a Florida Licensed Home Inspector with a couple hour course and tell me who should have more knowledge of building practices.

Say the home inspector and I say you are full of cr-p.

[John Shishilla]

I agree that the requirements to be licensed as a GC or Engineer are greater. Doing a wind mit on an 1802 from requires training not directly provided by any license. The Nachi wind mit class is one of the most comprehensive and best priced. The sole reason I help to write it; because NOBODY should do a wind mit without proper training, I do not care which license you have.

[Dennis J. Bonner]

Originally Posted by cthomas

Thomas Enterprising is in a position to profit from insurance reinspections. I think it is important that I start off by saying that so that anyone who reads this understands what I've written.

Insurance companies should stop doing reinspections. If they would like to fix the problem they are currently having with improper wind mitigation credits the solution is easy. At the policies next renewal they should not accept the old wind mitigation form. In order to receive when mitigation credits the policyholder would have to get a new inspection. This new inspection would comply with the current standards of wind mitigation and could be reviewed by the underwriting department of the insurance carrier in order to make sure that the credits are accurate and have been proven through photographs.

No one can disagree that wind mitigation done three years ago was less accurate than what is done today. Everyone has learned as time has gone on. It's understandable why an insurance carrier would want to do reinspections. Actually it's admirable that an insurance company would care enough about their clients to pay for a service that qualifies their client for a discount.

When a policyholder receives a notice stating that their insurance rates are increasing their rightfully upset. If the increase is due to the fact that they were receiving unwarranted when mitigation credits it does not change the emotional state of the policyholder.

The intention of the insurance company was to take the most convenient route for the policyholder to receive an accurate premium. If policyholders had a better understanding of credits, reinspection programs would work perfectly. That is not the case in the real world. As an insurance carrier, in order to protect your image and satisfy your clients you will receive a much greater return on your investment by expiring the policyholder's old wind mitigation form and providing a $100 credit to help offset the cost of getting a new wind mitigation inspection.

I would suggest providing a 180 day window for the policyholder to get a new wind mitigation inspection. If within this time period a new wind mitigation is performed, the underwriting department of the carrier can decide if the new report meets the requirements to prove the credits. If it does the mitigation credits are applied and everyone moves on.

What's great about this is that it allows the insurance carrier to show what the policy would cost without any wind mitigation credits. If the if the policy premium increases by $200 but still is much less than what the policy would cost without any credits easier for the policyholder to understand they're still getting a discount.

I have yet to talk to one insurance agent who has felt satisfied about a reinspection program. Most agents feel that the programs are making it very difficult to maintain the loyalty of their clients.

What insurance company would not want to fix the problem they have with inaccurate wind mitigation credits? All of them would, it is a huge problem for insurance companies who already operate on thin margins. By expiring the old wind mitigations the insurance carrier would be able to recoup 100% of the inaccurate credits with no cost.

What are your thoughts?

I would agree 100%, I spend way too much time reinspecting the reinspections.

[Christopher B. Thomas]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

Not the used hearing aid salesmen that just got grandfathered in.

I would assume a larger portion of Architects, General Contractors, and Engineers would have an overall greater understanding of construction practices. As opposed to a home inspector who took a couple hour course.

Just look at the requirements for becoming an Architect, General Contractor, or Engineer as compared to a Florida Licensed Home Inspector with a couple hour course and tell me who should have more knowledge of building practices.

Say the home inspector and I say you are full of cr-p.

I would say the home inspectors are just as qualified than many general contractors. Being a great inspector is about attention to detail. The wind mitigation is not difficult. All that it requires is someone willing to listen and learn the requirements.

It seems when reading your posts you are angry. Is that just a misinterpretation or are you angry about something. The last I checked this is a message board for home inspectors and as a home inspector I find your post insulting to the industry.

Some of the best and worst inspectors I have met were CGC. The license does not make you a good inspector. Training and attention to detail does.

[Michael J. Meeker]

No I am not angry.

I do not care if you are insulted by the truth.

[Thomas R. Hession]

Welcome to Meekerland....ignore him, there are more of him out there. He's been insulting home inspectors since he's been here.

Probably the best idea I have heard...someone should run this by a politician
who needs to get elected. There is a good story here and it could save the taxpayers a ton of money...especially since citizens is looking to raise prices again.

[Michael J. Meeker]

I never said it was not a good idea. I just said
"
Photos are a huge part of the problem. the photos requirement should be removed immediately. what should matter is the qualifications of the inspector. we can verify most things from the safety of the hatch. s*** bags use photos to perpetrate fraud good inspectors will get hurt trying to accommodate insurance companies request. how come no 1 can see that photos prove it absolutely nothing not even the house that they're supposed to be in. "

After that I just responded to a Chris's comment about contractors. "For every inspection done right on the word of a contractor, ten will be done wrong."

As normal I was defending one of the licenses I hold when I felt I was attacked.

I am going to attempt to refrain from any negative attacks for the benefit of the home inspection profession so hopefully those who wish me to do so will refrain from attacking Florida Licensed General Contractors.

[Christopher B. Thomas]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

As normal I was defending one of the licenses I hold when I felt I was attacked.

I am going to attempt to refrain from any negative attacks for the benefit of the home inspection profession so hopefully those who wish me to do so will refrain from attacking Florida Licensed General Contractors.

I understand why you were defensive. No problem.

[Michael J. Meeker]

Chris you and I are straight, as we spoke today. I was letting Tom know how I felt as he felt obligated to run his lip.