I recieved the same email. I don’t know any more than what is stated in that email & what has been posted in this section. Considering my limited knowledge & understanding of this subject, I am very concerned.
I am much less established than others & a one man company. Even if I did such a good job inspecting as to prevent levelheaded clients from wanting to sue me, we all know there are folks that will file frivolous suits simply out of spite.
No limit of liability clause will stop this from occurring.
True, however it allows the door to open wider. Similar to “A lock won’t stop a thief but helps to keep an honest man, honest”.
So, if infact I can no longer limit my liability or have my insurance pay for defense than I am afraid continuing as I am would not be a very good business decision.
The only ones that have anything to worry about are those that NEED an attempt to limit their liability.
Limiting liability takes many forms such as a persons education, the level of work they perform, the services they offer, time they spend on inspection, how they drive to an inspection, the words they use, etc., etc. While I don’t rely on someone else to limit my liability, I do take each & every form of limitation seriously.
My fears are:
-Dramatic increase in insurance premiums
Not going to happen. There is no need or impetus to raise E&O or GL rates unless large numbers of claims occur as with other types of insurance.
Insurance premiums of all kinds are largely based on risk not just claims. While a clean record is a factor for each individual, as a whole, no limitation ability will add greater risk on insurance companies. Therefore it is possible that their risk management team will increase rate to compensate their increased risk.
-Needing to charge an amount for services that are so high, that nobody will actually hire me.
Just what level of fee would you consider this to be?
In my agreement, I offer clients an alternative to the limitation of liability clause. They are not forced to into it. It states that I agree to perform without the clause for the sum of $4500 and the inspection will take as long as I feel necessary which may include but not limited to multiple days. This is my business decision based on my risk assessment.
-Inspectors/companies modeled much like mine will drop off leaving only large or corporate inspections businesses the only ones financially capable to sustain business operations.
Large multi-inspector firms will continue to grow with or without these changes. However they grow because of their business models which are not to the advantage or best interest of consumers who need this service. As a result these type of rule changes will affect them more than any good and honest single Inspector firm.
The more I think about this one…I completely agree. I don’t like the fact that a “bad” inspectors can do crappy or poor inspections for the consumer & keep on going because they can hide behind the limitation. I don’t hide behind it but do have it to protect me.
Since I live just outside of Austin, I plan to attend simply to learn more about what is going on & just how it is likely to impact my future.
I may very well find out that its impact is not of great concern to an honest, hard working inspector & that it will weed out the fly-by guys. Again, educating myself further is the key here.
Do you plan to attend? Maybe you can offer me insight & help block out other’s hysteria.