jferry

The story is demonstrably not true. Either you are lying or you "friend" is lying. Which is it? I think most rational people know the answer to that question.

Eh, not really, MO'H. You only had to indemnify them for your negligence, not theirs. A weak inspector? Please. I have never met a weak inspector. This business is not for the weak, though hausdok may see a skewed sample. The tens of hundreds that I have met are vastly overqualified, highly competent professionals and ethical in the extreme. Most claims against home inspectors are not meritorious: 95% in my personal experience. The problem is that you have to defend them and that can be extremely expensive. The problem is that once a claim goes into suit and your insurance company engages defense counsel, there is absolutely no incentive for that defense attorney to contain costs and every incentive for him to generate costs. True. And unless you die, your life insurance carrier risks very little. And unless you develop pancreatic cancer, your health insurance carrier risks very little. And unless you believe anything that O'Handley says, you risk very little. Then the smart inspector contacts me and I send a letter and the claimant is never heard from again. Right. Please identify these "plenty of folks". No claim goes away because a tortfeasor does not have insurance. That's the best of all possible claims. It generally results in a default judgment which will be eventually paid with post-judgment interest augmentation. That is the single most stupid statement that has ever been made with respect to the likelihood of a home inspection resulting in a claim. Ninety-five percent of all claims against home inspectors are unmeritorious. That means that, notwithstanding the superiority of your inspection, an astonishingly large number of your clients will think that you did a bad job. Most inspectors of my acquaintance are professionals. As such, they do a professional inspection regardless of what their fees are and understand the professional liability risks. And if you follow that advice and you have a claim, say, before 10 years, well you'll have a good claim against Mr. O'Handley for giving you "expert" advice that was errant. Competence has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you will be the subject of a bogus claim. I have handled 4 claims in two years for one of the best inspectors in the nation. Every one of them went away with a letter from me. I have handled 3 claims in one year from another inspector. All three went away with a letter from me.

With E & O your assets are at risk up to your deductible. Without E & O, your assets are at risk up to their value. Very true. In fact, the most truthful statement MO'H has ever made. Always good advice - but you knew that! Unless you are independently wealthy you should also hedge your bets with E & O Insurance. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

The story is not true.

Mike - It's not true! You know it. I know it. Anyone over the age of reason knows it. It never happened and you are making a fool of yourself by continuing to flog it as a true story. Someone needs to do an intervention with you. Joe

Scott - Anybody can be found these days. Especially a high profile guy like you. Claims made is all you need. Occurrence is a waste of money, if you are staying in business and are continuously insured, i. e., no gaps in coverage. You do not need occurrence coverage to change companies. Your new company will cover you back to the original date [your retro date] that you became insured. You must indicate what your retro date is on the application to your new insurer. You only need tail coverage when you leave the business. And it only covers you for 3 years. Generally, that is enough. Sixty percent of all claims are presented within a year of the inspection. Ninety percent within two years. You can imagine how meritorious a claim is that is presented two years after the inspection.

Well, one thing about the "'Rednedk' [sic] Misc. forum over at Nick's place", Rich, is he does not "delete" anything. If you oppose free speech, perhaps you should emigrate. Regards, Joe

Men and women are . . . well . . . incompatible. Nevertheless, that's not a story likely to make them more compatible.

Scott is correct. Brinks is a highly reputable company and you are only leaving money on the table by not promoting Brinks.

You think? Did you hear him thank President Obama? And why isn't that in everyone's email inbox and on youtube? The guy is in way over his head. We'll be lucky to be even after his term is up.

Could this forum be more irrelevant? May be time to deep-six this, Mike.

Dude, This never happened. It's total BS. Joe

Never, repeat EN-EE-VEE-EE-ARE, walk on a roof. Ever. Not required. Dangerous. May damage roof. Does not tell you anything you wouldn't find out by going in the attic. And Darren and Mike O'H, I know, you "ALWAYS" walk the roof. So save your breath. I won't be monitoring replies to this post.

Call me.

Has Gil gone into the Witness Protection Program?