jferry

Only iNACHI members get a discount because iNACHI wants its members to hear this valuable information and gives them a $100 subsidy. Maybe you could get ASHI to extend the same benefit to its members. Many ASHI members have taken the course and are unanimous in their praise of its value and timeliness. Gary Monfeli, the president of the Chicago ASHI chapter heard an abridged version of the seminar in November and he is among my biggest boosters. And he will be at the Chicago seminar. I hope you reconsider. You won't regret it.

The problem with receiving a demand letter from a former client or his lawyer is that it has to be responded to whether or not the claim has merit. Most claims against home inspectors lack merit for one or more reasons. Generally, a meritless claim will fall into one of the following five categories: 1. It seeks damages for something that is not contemplated by a home inspection, something for which the home inspector is not responsible. In other words, the item for which the claimant is seeking redress is something that is beyond the ability of a non-invasive visual home inspection to determine. 2. It seeks damages for an item that is outside the Standard of Practice under which the inspection is being conducted. 3. It seeks damages for an item that was concealed from the home inspector's view at the time of the inspection. 4. It seeks damages for an item for which the home inspector disclaimed responsibility because of inability to access the area of the home that contained that item. 5. It seeks damages for something that the home inspector actually found and wrote up in his inspection report. There is a home inspector in New Jersey for whom I have written responses to three separate demand letters from former clients. All three of these claims were abandoned following my response. This particular inspector happens to be an excellent inspector with vast experience and is extraordinarily busy. He conducts about 500 to 600 inspections a year. Not only is he an excellent inspector and highly reputable, he's an extraordinarily nice and generous man. He mentors new inspectors. Because he does so many inspections annually, he has greater exposure to becoming a victim of a meritless claim by sheer dint of the number of inspections that he is conducting each year. Just as a driver who puts 50,000 miles on his car annually is more likely to have an accident than a driver who only drives 10,000 miles, the more successful you are as a home inspector, the more likely you are to be a victim of one of these meritless claims. One case involved the inspection of a property whose roof he reported was “nearing the end of its useful lifeâ€

I live near NYC and here are some of my recent observations: Black Friday- got a close parking spot in the Short Hills Mall and did not have to wait to sit down for dinner in a restaurant that is usually packed, even off season. I went into a local Staples store on Black Friday at 4PM and the "Doorbuster" specials that were in limited quantity since 7 AM were almost all still available. The manager told me that sales were way down. Drove into NYC on the Sunday after Black Friday to pick-up my son expecting to hit mobs of people but there was - no traffic- . Many Broadway Shows are closing. A family friend went to see Spamalot and the balcony was empty. Who can afford to bring a family of four to the theater? The tickets are over $100 each, plus dinner, plus parking, and whatever else you buy. Yankee Stadium, Giant Stadium, Shea (Citibank?) are all having issues with selling season seats because of the costs. Typically, there are waiting lists for Giant season tickets. I think the big money spenders don't have it to spare this year. Thet hedge fund money has dried-up. The Walmarts, Targets, Costco, etc.. are OK, but not as busy. None of my home inspector or real estate friends are busy. Hope it gets better soon. I had a similar Black Friday experience. Back in May I switched over to Apple after finally tiring of the multiple screen freezes, the lost data, the interminable boot up sequence and the frequent CTRL-ALT-DEL chords. I signed up for the weekly classes to learn all the things that the MacBook can do. A lot, it turns out. The Apple Store is in Suburban Square an upscale mall in Ardmore, PA. The class was at 10:00 a. m. on Black Friday - what was I thinking? - and I expected to find parking a tough ticket. Normally, you have to stalk someone who appears to be leaving so you can commandeer his space before someone else. But that day, I had my pick of dozens. The Apple Store was jammed, however, so people are buying some high ticket gadgets. But other than the counterintuitive ease of parking, I've seen no other index of people cutting back. Keep in mind that a lot of folks have gone online for shopping. And the newspapers were curiously lacking in retail doomsday stories. At least around here. Once he takes office, President-elect Obama may, by sheer dint of his charismatic persona, help restore the confidence in the future that the nation allegedly no longer has. Regardless, I continue to think that predictions of a long-term economic malaise will prove false. Much like the predictions of global warming and permanent $4.00/gallon gasoline. On Saturday, I paid $1.579/gallon. This time last year, it was a dollar/gallon higher.

I am having my doubts about just how widespread this pain actually is. I drove up to Fordham on Saturday morning to pick up my son for Christmas vacation. [Curiously, an electronic sign at Fordham University was wishing everyone "Happy Holidays" - go figure.] Traffic on the NJ Turnpike was bumper to bumper - literally, in a few instances. When we got to the Bronx, the streets were crowded with shoppers. After lunch, we took the Metro North into town and had to stand. Got to the city, Grand Central Terminal was bustling. Checked into the hotel. "Do you have a full house?" I inquired of the desk clerk. "Pretty much. It's starting to fill up." Walked over to Times Square to see if The Naked Cowboy was braving the very inclement elements. He wasn't. But more appropriately clothed citizens were. And it was, as my mother used to say, "bickering". ["It's bickerin', Joe, put a hat on ye!"] Bryant Park was hosting an ad hoc collection of Christmas kiosks that were hawking all manner of Christmas tchochkes - an oxymoron, if ever there was one, I know - and the skating rink was clotted with skaters. No one at the hotel bar seemed worried about . . . anything. And I don't think that that is a skewed sample. I have made similar observations here. You?

He would have been 60, today. http://www.vvmf.org/index.cfm?SectionID=110&anClip=52374.

Didn't mean to show hostility. Well, it doesn't go far enough. The operative word there is "can". It can shield owners. It doesn't say "it will shield them." It won't protect the owners if the owners are individual tortfeasors. If someone is a shareholder of a corporation operating an automobile on corporate business and kills a pedestrian as a result of his negligence both he and the corporation are going to be sued. The corporate entity will protect other shareholders from personal liability but not the tortfeasor. Most HIs who have LLCs or Subchapter S Corporations are the ones doing the home inspecting. Their LLC or Sub S entity will not protect them because, as the tortfeasor, they can be sued individually. Many doctors practice in professional corporations. If one of those doctors is sued for malpractice, the other doctors are protected by the PC. The PC does not protect the doctor who was sued. I hope that that explains it. If you didn't mean to be hostile, I am sorry that I took it that way. No harm, no foul. Joe Joe, Everything you've described is accurate, as I've learned from a couple of unfortunate situations. "Piercing the veil" isn't a terribly difficult feat to accomplish. That being the reality, is there anything an individual can do to distance himself from his corporation and perhaps shield his personal assets? I'm the sole shareholder of my sub-S corporation, and the tax code requires me to pay myself a salary as an employee, so the relationship is self evident. Are there any options available to separate, or at least put some ground between, myself personally from my business? Corporate entities do not protect inspectors who conduct or who are alleged to have conducted negligent inspections. They will be sued and their corporations will be sued. There is no way to protect your assets if you are a professional providing professional services. That's true if you are a home inspector, a doctor, a lawyer, an appraiser or a dentist. That is not to say that you can not manage the risk. You can incorporate into your practice tools and techniques that will reduce your liability exposure. That is the subject of my seminar. Even if you incorporate those tools and techniques, it will not prevent you from being sued. Anyone with a typewriter and $150 can sue you. What it will do is prevent anyone who sues you from prevailing in that suit and provide you with a means of recouping your expenses in defending yourself. To manage the expense of defending yourself, the best method is to always carry E & O Insurance. Get competitive quotes from a variety of sources and make your decision based on coverage, price and resistance to frivolous claims.

Didn't mean to show hostility. Well, it doesn't go far enough. The operative word there is "can". It can shield owners. It doesn't say "it will shield them." It won't protect the owners if the owners are individual tortfeasors. If someone is a shareholder of a corporation operating an automobile on corporate business and kills a pedestrian as a result of his negligence both he and the corporation are going to be sued. The corporate entity will protect other shareholders from personal liability but not the tortfeasor. Most HIs who have LLCs or Subchapter S Corporations are the ones doing the home inspecting. Their LLC or Sub S entity will not protect them because, as the tortfeasor, they can be sued individually. Many doctors practice in professional corporations. If one of those doctors is sued for malpractice, the other doctors are protected by the PC. The PC does not protect the doctor who was sued. I hope that that explains it. If you didn't mean to be hostile, I am sorry that I took it that way. No harm, no foul. Joe

The statement that I made above is true here in Indiana (Information obtained by my lawyer and another lawyer I worked with plus a lawyer my wife worked for). How many home inspectors have you heard of that lost their house directly from a lawsuit? None that I know of. Working with Nick at InterNACHI, I would think you would have cases that will proves me wrong. It's not true anywhere where English is spoken. If you are doing the home inspection, you can be sued personally. If you are a corporate entity, it will be sued along with you. You need to get a new lawyer. If your car is owned by your LLC but you are driving it and you injure someone, you, the driver will be sued and so will your corporation. And lose the hostility. I have helped more home inspectors than you ever will.

Not to change the subject but that is why it is important to separate your business from your personal life (LLC or Corp). Even though there are some exceptions to that rule and laws can vary from state to state, it normally holds up. What is the point you are making? That operating as a corporation will insulate you from liability? If so, know this: it won't.

This is an interesting development. Why are you getting so defensive? I never questioned the provenance of the story. Not here, but then you went back over to the soap opera and directed folks over there to come over here saying, "I don't know when I've read a post with a higher BS index." Then after your buddy, Jimmy Boy, came over here he went back to the soap opera and said, "Mike has never allowed the truth to interfere with what he believes to be an interesting post," for which you thanked him. You said something else too, but then deleted it - perhaps you knew I'd read it? In any event, it sure reads to me like you and others are accusing me of putting up a story that I knew to be false. Nice switch in tactics, Counselor! There's only one problem with that; I know the man and I trust him. As ex-investigator who's spent literally hundreds of hours on witness stands dueling with the machinations of defense attorneys intent on getting their very guilty clients off, I'm afraid attorneys aren't very high on my trust index; especially after some of the stories that my older sister, an ex-ADA and ex-public defender, has told me about the way the "legal" system works. That tactic won't work with me, I'm afraid. Oh, by the way, if you're going to use 25-cent words to impress folks, you should at least spell them correctly. Nice piece of reverse psychology, but I doubt that you consider me to be any more of a "journalist" than you are. I know the man; I trust him and I made him a promise; so, though I might be curious, I'm taking him at his word. What part of that is unclear to you? Are you telling me that attorneys, despite their own curiosity, never accept their clients' version of events and then make promises to those same folks not to divulge certain information to others? Hmm? Sweet, from righty to south paw, very smooth. I can only infer from your reference to Dan Rather that you think that, by implying that I'd put up a post that I knew to be false and then try to bluff me way through it by offering to take a polygraph, you think I'd be willing to break my word to someone in order to prove to folks that I'm not pulling a Dan Rather. Well, like I said, I couldn't care less whether you choose to believe the story or not; you and anyone else is free to call it BS. The story stays and, unless he chooses to reveal to you who he is and gives you the reference for the case so that you can dig into it, you won't be getting any more information about it from me. Now, why don't we discuss your blatant attempts to promote your services on this site without paying for the right to do so. This site is free to members: but the only way that I can keep it that way is if vendors are paying for the privilege of reaching its members. Isn't completely ignoring a site's rules by promoting one's business without paying for advertising rights as the other sponsors do also some kind of skulduggery? From my point of view, you've not only called me stupid but you and your boy have essentially said that I'm a liar, while at the same time you've abused my hospitality. Not exactly a very effective interview technique when you're seeking to manipulate a witness into giving you what you want. That's it, this is the last post I'll make in this thread, Counselor; though I won't promise you that I won't get fed up with it at some point and prune it. After all, why wouldn't I if I never allow the truth to get in the way of a good story? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike I never questioned the provenance of the story here or on the InterNACHI Message Board. I said that the story was BS both here and there. As an ex-investigator who spent hundreds of hours on the witness stand, then you of all people should be able to detect when a story does not make logical sense. And that story defied logic on multiple levels and I laid out a compelling case why that was so. I linked to the post on the InterNACHI Message Board because that venue has multiple times the number of visitors that this one does and I wanted a wide swath of the inspection community to understand why that story could not possibly be true. By the way, what I had thanked Mr. Bushart for was his having acceded to my "unsportsmanlike conduct" chastisement of him for something that was in his original post. He removed it and I thanked him for having done so. The post that I removed was the one in which I had chastised him and had quoted his earlier post. It doesn't make much sense to leave a post up with the part I thought offensive, after he had edited his original post to remove the offensive material, now does it? IAnother red flag in your increasingly bizarre and credulous defense of your friend's mendacity is his curious publicity shyness. In a day and age, where professional basketball players high-five their teammates when they sink a foul shot, you would think that a fellow who had outfoxed a plaintiff, her lawyer, his lawyer and his insurance company in this spectacular, outside-the-box, MacGyver-like maneuver would be shouting this coup from the rooftops, wouldn't you? Well, wouldn't you? Tell you what, have your friend call me and give me the details. If the story checks out, I'll make a $2000 contribution to Toys for Tots in his name and yours.

This is an interesting development. Why are you getting so defensive? I never questioned the provenance of the story. If you were merely the messenger, you're as much a victim of this liar's skullduggery as your membership, perhaps even more so. As a journalist, aren't you the least bit curious to go back and ask him to clarify the holes in the story that I have identified? Isn't that what a journalist does? And didn't Dan Rather offer to take a polygraph, too?

I am sure that Jim Bushart - and anyone else remotely familiar with the InterNACHI Message Board - would find it amusing to have you consider him and me as confederates. I hold no brief for Mr. Bushart and no animosity towards you. Or anyone else for that matter. I was merely pointing out for the benefit of the more naive habitues of this website of whom you are evidently one that the story did not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. Mike, I don't know who this inspector is but he is clearly full of it for the very compelling reasons that I pointed out in my posts. I am willing to give him $2000 if he's telling the truth, if he will give me $1000, if he isn't. That's easy money. I won't even expose him on this or any other board. If this story actually happened as you described and he proves it to me, I will give him $2000 and will print a retraction of my post. I will not "out" him to anyone. [bear in mind that I spent two years in the seminary. Seal of Confession.] But, please . . . I'm from North Philly. This story stinks to high heaven. There is no juror that I have ever tried a case in front of who would believe this story. I am shocked that you do.

Perhaps, his "contemporaries" will need to re-evaluate the loftiness of their regard.

I would try Business Risk Partners, Allen Insurance or Target. All have been in the home inspection E&O business for a long time. With BRP is you belong to ASHI they have a special program for their members. I have also heard that some State Farm agents can write it as well, it all depends on the State you are in. It is also written through the corporate office and not at the agent level. Joe Ferry who posted first also writes E&O. Get as many quotes as you can. That is always a good business strategy. Scott, I do not write E & O. I do have a financial interest in the site I recommended, however. Perhaps, that was what you meant to convey. By all means, however, get as many E & O quotes as you can. And if you ever have an issue that I can help you with, do not hesitate to contact me. Joe

One other index of BS: The plaintiff's lawyer got NOTHING! I don't think so!

Then I will smoke him out. $2000! And he gives me $1000 if he is LYING. Mike, Please tell me you're not this stupid. If you are, I want folks like you on my juries when I am representing plaintiffs. Shout out to anyone reading this: Put up a dollar each to smoke out this liar.

Go here: www.eiipro.com

Home inspectors who operate in states that do not require that they carry E & O Insurance can perform the risk/benefit calculus and either insure the potential risk or self-insure it. One factor that they should consider is that, while it is a popularly held belief among home inspectors that carrying E & O insurance "puts a bulls-eye on your back", the reverse is not true. Not carrying E & O Insurance does not remove the bulls-eye. As a practicing trial lawyer for more than 20 years in Philadelphia, I can assure you that whether or not a defendant carries insurance has virtually no influence over whether or not to file suit. What does have influence is whether or not a. the claimant has damages and b. the defendant was negligent. No insurance company will cover defamation claims. None. Yet, there is no shortage of defamation suits filed in this country. An uninsured defendant is a much easier target as he more than likely will be unrepresented and thus very likely to miss deadlines that will result in default judgments or make damaging admissions in his pleadings. Collecting the judgment against such a defendant is easy if he has assets: autos, business equipment, home. Otherwise it is simply a matter of waiting until he needs a loan or a mortgage. All lenders require that any outstanding judgments be satisfied before they will lend money. So, buy E & O insurance or don't buy E & O insurance. Just make sure that you consider all of the factors with your eyes WIDE OPEN.

After reading this story, my BS meter was redlining over into the NEVER EXCEED zone. I absolutely guarantee you that this story never happened as described. I will give "John" $500 if he can document the "facts" as written. In fact, I'll even do the legwork. Just give me the caption of the lawsuit and the names of the attorneys involved. The major indices of BS are as follows: A. The suit is highly defensible, as described, and is the very kind of claim that I routinely get rid of with a go-away letter. B. Paying $45,000 on top of $28,000 for a defensible lawsuit is a bad business model that no insurance company that wants to remain in business will adopt. In for a penny, in for a pound. C. No plaintiff's attorney who wants to remain in business will take on a contingent fee basis a case that is worth, at most, $55,000 and that will require 2 1/2 years of litigation and involve the expense of expert witnesses, depositions and the like. And no plaintiff will pay an hourly rate plus expenses to prosecute a case that is "highly defensible" as this was. D. No insurer is going to "contribute" $45,000 so the inspection company can profit from the sale of the house. Ever hear of subrogation? E. The claimant doesn't have $55,000 in damages, if "John" was able to effect the repair for $7500. She has $7500 in damages, at most, a fact that makes B, C and D even less likely. So, while it is a feel good story, and one that resonates with this constituency, it never happened! I don't expect to hear from "John".

The only way to increase your liability exposure is to conduct a negligent inspection. If you manage your client's expectations, armor-plate your PIA, follow your SOP, load your report with disclaimers and do a professional job, you will virtually eliminate your liability exposure. You won't be able to prevent a determined claimant from filing a claim but you will be well-positioned to defend it.

Many factors influence insurance rates. Customer loyalty is not one of them.

http://www.homeinspectorce.com/masteremail.htm