Jump to content
InspectorPro Insurance

Article: How to improve your marketability with referring party indemnification

Recommended Posts

Hi TIJ Readers!

With 69 percent of home buyers nationally choosing their home inspectors based on their realtors' recommendations, it's no wonder why we see a lot of industry interest in bettering agent marketing efforts. Yet, few inspectors know that most home inspection insurance policies come with referring party indemnification, an endorsement that many real estate brokers see as a benefit.

Teach your local realtors about your insurance policy's referring party indemnification coverage, and you may be able to improve your referral rate. You can learn more about referring party indemnification in our recent article, previewed below.

Best,
Stephanie
 


How To Improve Your Marketability with Referring Party Indemnification

During a recent home inspection, you missed the polybutylene pipes in the attic. When your clients, the home buyers, discovered your error, they were furious. They didn't just sue you; they sued everyone involved in the home's sale. That included the real estate agent that referred the job to you.

What is referring party indemnification?

In home inspection policies that include referring party indemnification, should there be a claim about inspection findings, the insurance company assumes liability for not just the home inspector but the referring party.

If your insurer offers third party indemnification, your insurance policy will define referring real estate agents, real estate brokers, mortgage lenders, relocation companies, and other relevant third party referral sources as limited additional insureds. As such, these referral sources can receive insurance coverage from claims arising from your inspection services.

Common conditions to these endorsements include:
 
  • You and the referring party didn't give notice of the claim to another insurance carrier before your current policy began.
  • The inspection related to the claim occurred on or after your retroactive date and before the end of your policy period.
  • Before you started carrying insurance, you and your referring party couldn't reasonably predict that your clients were going to file the claim.
  • The referring party reports the claim in writing to your carrier during the policy period.
  • The claim doesn't involve any services the referring party performed independent of you, the home inspector.
  • The claim is subject to your insurance limits.

In addition to insurance carriers, some other companies offer referring party indemnification to home inspectors. Just like you do with your insurance policy, we recommend reviewing any referring party indemnification plan you intend to use to make sure you understand the terms.

How can referral coverage improve my marketability?

As a home inspector, Paul Stratton, Owner of Stratton Inspection Services, LLC in Arizona, finds that realtors worry about potential claims. Many are concerned that, if the home inspector they refer to the client misses something, they'll be liable. Stratton calms brokers' nerves by explaining that his insurance policy protects them, too.

"Realtors want to know that they're covered and that their client is covered as well," Stratton told us in an interview for our article "How to work with more realtors." "[Referring party indemnification] gives them more peace of mind."

[READ MORE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schemes like this have always made me feel uncomfortable. It's just a half-step away from paying a real estate agent for referrals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jim Katen said:

Schemes like this have always made me feel uncomfortable. It's just a half-step away from paying a real estate agent for referrals. 

What makes you feel like referring party coverage is a scheme?

Third-party coverage is actually really common. You see it in the real estate space all the time with builders, contractors, etc. It's present in other fields, too, like the medical field. All it's really trying to do is make sure that the person who actually did the work subject to the lawsuit is the one paying for the coverage. Because, chances are, if you don't do the same type of work as the party you're referring (or being referred by), you don't carry the right coverage. That's why we recommend you request additional insured coverage on the insurance of those companies to whom you refer business (i.e. termite company, roofer, etc.).

Now, if you're uncomfortable with marketing to real estate agents generally, I can understand that. We insure quite a few inspectors who prefer to market their business to consumers rather than agents--some for ethical reasons others for economic concerns. (i.e. If the economy takes a turn, I don't want to be relying on realtors that go out of business.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

What makes you feel like referring party coverage is a scheme?

Not all parties, Stephanie, just agents.  Agents, because they're heavily invested in arriving at a closing so they can collect their commission, regardless of the condition of the house.  They're compromised when asked to refer the inspector that's best for the buyer.  The inspection is about disclosing issues with the house and no party has a greater stake in learning that than the prospective buyer of the house.

Offering referring party coverage isn't a scheme but when that party is agents, it is complicity that aids in the betrayal of the buyer by agents who push their referrals and by those inspectors who seek those referrals.  Offering such coverage isn't an issue to me but it is disturbing to me for an insurance company to promote it in reference to agents that refer inspectors.

In my 16 years, I've never experienced business success in home inspection.  I don't dare open my door to the influence of the agent and that has always cost me success.  I'm certain I'd be at the top of my field if agents could somehow by prevented from referring inspectors.

There are two kinds of practitioners in real estate.  The kind that promotes their profession and the kind that milks it.

Edited by Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't remember ever having to promote the idea.  Write a good report.  

I am not as grumpy as Marc, but understand his position.  I have had coverage for many many years and really never thought about using it in my grand market plan.  I have had some limited success in this profession. 

I understand Jim K's position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Les said:

can't remember ever having to promote the idea.  Write a good report.  

I am not as grumpy as Marc, but understand his position.  I have had coverage for many many years and really never thought about using it in my grand market plan.  I have had some limited success in this profession. 

I understand Jim K's position.  

It's not the same everywhere.  It's really bad out here in Louisiana.  I should move near Les and give him some competition...or pray he'd hire me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marc said:

Not all parties, Stephanie, just agents.  Agents, because they're heavily invested in arriving at a closing so they can collect their commission, regardless of the condition of the house.  They're compromised when asked to refer the inspector that's best for the buyer.  The inspection is about disclosing issues with the house and no party has a greater stake in learning that than the prospective buyer of the house.

Offering referring party coverage isn't a scheme but when that party is agents, it is complicity that aids in the betrayal of the buyer by agents who push their referrals and by those inspectors who seek those referrals.  Offering such coverage isn't an issue to me but it is disturbing to me for an insurance company to promote it in reference to agents that refer inspectors.

In my 16 years, I've never experienced business success in home inspection.  I don't dare open my door to the influence of the agent and that has always cost me success.  I'm certain I'd be at the top of my field if agents could somehow by prevented from referring inspectors.

There are two kinds of practitioners in real estate.  The kind that promotes their profession and the kind that milks it.

@Marc, I think you make a lot of good points about agent motivations and how they can negatively impact inspection results. It's not something we publish on much, but it is something we discuss with inspectors over the phone and at conferences. Compromising inspection results to appease realtors is a disservice to their shared clients. Plus, it opens inspectors up to liability, which, in turn, opens us up to liability. So, it certainly isn't something we condone.

Returning to the premise of the article itself, it is possible to have relationships with real estate agents that provide client referrals without compromising inspection integrity. It requires inspectors to be selective in who they choose to work with and diligent in setting appropriate expectations. We insure many inspectors with healthy working relationships with realtors who respect their work--even when it "kills" a deal--because they recognize the value of accurate, thorough inspections. We hope that inspectors use the ideas presented in the article to find agent relationships that don't just support their business but that support their clients and the inspection industry.

1 hour ago, Les said:

can't remember ever having to promote the idea.  Write a good report.  

I am not as grumpy as Marc, but understand his position.  I have had coverage for many many years and really never thought about using it in my grand market plan.  I have had some limited success in this profession. 

I understand Jim K's position.  

@Les, we didn't really think of referring party indemnification as a marketing tool, either, until we started getting questions about it. Questions like:

1. Real estate agents are afraid of being wrapped into lawsuits regarding my home inspections. Is there any way my insurance can cover them, too?

2. Do you have any flyers, presentations, or other marketing materials about referring party indemnification I could use to educate the agents I work with?

Those questions popping up over and over again made us think we needed to a) clarify what referring party indemnification is and how to recognize it in your insurance policy and b) provide guidance as to how inspectors could come up with their own marketing materials should they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

...Returning to the premise of the article itself, it is possible to have relationships with real estate agents that provide client referrals without compromising inspection integrity...

I agree, and that the prevalence of such relationships varies with the locality and depends on the status of the real estate norms in a given area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

What makes you feel like referring party coverage is a scheme?

Of those inspectors who use this coverage as part of their marketing to real estate agents, I'll bet that most, if not all of them do not advertise the fact to their actual customers. In fact, I'll also bet that they intentionally keep quiet about it.

Look at it this way: if you were a home buyer and you knew that the inspector that your agent recommended was paying to indemnify that agent, would that elevate the inspector in your eyes? Would it make you think twice about the agent's motivations and the inspector's loyalties? In my experience all but the most credulous home buyers would view this as a "scheme" or perhaps as an "arrangement" that benefits the home inspector and the agent, but not the consumer. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jim Katen said:

Of those inspectors who use this coverage as part of their marketing to real estate agents, I'll bet that most, if not all of them do not advertise the fact to their actual customers. In fact, I'll also bet that they intentionally keep quiet about it.

Look at it this way: if you were a home buyer and you knew that the inspector that your agent recommended was paying to indemnify that agent, would that elevate the inspector in your eyes? Would it make you think twice about the agent's motivations and the inspector's loyalties? In my experience all but the most credulous home buyers would view this as a "scheme" or perhaps as an "arrangement" that benefits the home inspector and the agent, but not the consumer. 

 

 

Bravo.  Somebody give this man another point.

Edited by Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jim Katen said:

Of those inspectors who use this coverage as part of their marketing to real estate agents, I'll bet that most, if not all of them do not advertise the fact to their actual customers. In fact, I'll also bet that they intentionally keep quiet about it.

Look at it this way: if you were a home buyer and you knew that the inspector that your agent recommended was paying to indemnify that agent, would that elevate the inspector in your eyes? Would it make you think twice about the agent's motivations and the inspector's loyalties? In my experience all but the most credulous home buyers would view this as a "scheme" or perhaps as an "arrangement" that benefits the home inspector and the agent, but not the consumer. 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, @Jim Katen. I think you make an important point about on whom inspectors and agents should primarily focus: clients. While it is important to limit your liability to protect against potential litigation, inspectors' and agents' main focus should be serving their client home buyers to the best of their ability. It's a delicate balance but an important one.

Now, there are a few points that you make that I want to address. First, you argue that it's potentially problematic to not disclose referring party indemnification to clients. I'd argue that a lack of disclosure doesn't hurt the consumer while a disclosure can. As a general rule, we don't recommend that home inspectors advertise the fact that they carry insurance to clients--even if they're in a state that requires them to carry insurance, so that fact can be inferred with licensure. The reason being is because most people have an easier time mentally filing a lawsuit against an insurance company rather than an individual, and there are the occasional suit seekers.

A great example of this issue is a conversation I had with one of our insureds a while back. He'd had three claims come in in less than six months, which is pretty unusual, so the underwriters tried to investigate what about the inspector's behavior might be promoting such suits. They didn't find anything glaringly wrong with his technical inspection practices. However, upon visiting the inspectors website, they found a big, bold advertisement of his insurance information on his homepage. By promoting his insurance information, the inspector was attracting clients who perceived his inspections as warranties for which they could get refunds (and then some) if anything was amiss. This isn't best risk management practice.

Second, you argue that consumers may perceive referring party indemnification as an unfair arrangement between inspectors and agents. I can see this happening but only because I think a lot of people wouldn't understand what referring party indemnification actually is. Putting it into a different context, say my primary care doctor referred me to a surgeon who ended up botching my operation. I sue both the doctor and the surgeon, and the doctor turns around and says to the surgeon, "Hey, you're the one that messed up. I'm filing my claim with your insurance." As a consumer, I wouldn't blame the doctor for doing this nor would I really care because my claim is getting addressed either way. Again, my perspective might be skewed since I've actually read referring party indemnification endorsements, but to me, I think it's pretty fair when you think about it in terms of whoever did the work is paying for problems with the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Thanks for clarifying, @Jim Katen. I think you make an important point about on whom inspectors and agents should primarily focus: clients. While it is important to limit your liability to protect against potential litigation, inspectors' and agents' main focus should be serving their client home buyers to the best of their ability. It's a delicate balance but an important one.

I believe strongly that there's no "delicate balance" there. Serving my customer and limiting my liability are indistinguishable from one another. For decades, I've preached that viewing them as separate, conflicting tasks is what gets people in trouble. I summarize my philosophy in this maxim: If you cover your client's butt, you're will be covered automatically.

10 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Now, there are a few points that you make that I want to address. First, you argue that it's potentially problematic to not disclose referring party indemnification to clients. I'd argue that a lack of disclosure doesn't hurt the consumer while a disclosure can. As a general rule, we don't recommend that home inspectors advertise the fact that they carry insurance to clients--even if they're in a state that requires them to carry insurance, so that fact can be inferred with licensure. The reason being is because most people have an easier time mentally filing a lawsuit against an insurance company rather than an individual, and there are the occasional suit seekers.

A great example of this issue is a conversation I had with one of our insureds a while back. He'd had three claims come in in less than six months, which is pretty unusual, so the underwriters tried to investigate what about the inspector's behavior might be promoting such suits. They didn't find anything glaringly wrong with his technical inspection practices. However, upon visiting the inspectors website, they found a big, bold advertisement of his insurance information on his homepage. By promoting his insurance information, the inspector was attracting clients who perceived his inspections as warranties for which they could get refunds (and then some) if anything was amiss. This isn't best risk management practice.

You've completely deflected my point with an unrelated, if interesting, side issue having to do with an *incredibly* dopey home inspector.

10 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Second, you argue that consumers may perceive referring party indemnification as an unfair arrangement between inspectors and agents. I can see this happening but only because I think a lot of people wouldn't understand what referring party indemnification actually is. 

Doesn't matter. It's all about the perception. If you can see it happening, then it happens. Saying, "but wait, let me correct your perceptions" is not a very convincing alternative. 

10 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Putting it into a different context, say my primary care doctor referred me to a surgeon who ended up botching my operation. I sue both the doctor and the surgeon, and the doctor turns around and says to the surgeon, "Hey, you're the one that messed up. I'm filing my claim with your insurance." As a consumer, I wouldn't blame the doctor for doing this nor would I really care because my claim is getting addressed either way. 

The analogy is flawed because the primary doctor has nothing to gain from referring to a specialist who botches things up. A real estate agent, on the other hand, has something to gain from referring an inspector who is "soft" - even more so if he's the indemnifying type. That aside, I'll observe that by the time we get to a lawsuit, it's too late anyway - everyone has lost. My objection to the scheme is that it create perceptions that I'd rather avoid. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Jim Katen said:

I believe strongly that there's no "delicate balance" there. Serving my customer and limiting my liability are indistinguishable from one another. For decades, I've preached that viewing them as separate, conflicting tasks is what gets people in trouble. I summarize my philosophy in this maxim: If you cover your client's butt, you're will be covered automatically.

You've completely deflected my point with an unrelated, if interesting, side issue having to do with an *incredibly* dopey home inspector.

Doesn't matter. It's all about the perception. If you can see it happening, then it happens. Saying, "but wait, let me correct your perceptions" is not a very convincing alternative. 

The analogy is flawed because the primary doctor has nothing to gain from referring to a specialist who botches things up. A real estate agent, on the other hand, has something to gain from referring an inspector who is "soft" - even more so if he's the indemnifying type. That aside, I'll observe that by the time we get to a lawsuit, it's too late anyway - everyone has lost. My objection to the scheme is that it create perceptions that I'd rather avoid. 

 

@Jim Katen, thanks for your response. Based on your comments, it sounds like we're working off of completely different paradigms. You say that you "believe strongly that there's no 'delicate balance'" and that "if you cover your client's butt, [yours] will be covered automatically." Our philosophy dramatically differs in that we believe there are specific things home inspectors should do to manage their risk and limit their liability outside of being a good technical inspector. So, I believe we've reached an impasse. However, I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate your position and read our contenteven though we don't always agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

 

@Jim Katen, thanks for your response. Based on your comments, it sounds like we're working off of completely different paradigms. You say that you "believe strongly that there's no 'delicate balance'" and that "if you cover your client's butt, [yours] will be covered automatically." Our philosophy dramatically differs in that we believe there are specific things home inspectors should do to manage their risk and limit their liability outside of being a good technical inspector. So, I believe we've reached an impasse. However, I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate your position and read our contenteven though we don't always agree!

The two views are not opposing each other.  You and Jim are looking at different sides of the elephant.  He's from the inspector's view of the elephant,  you're from the insurance side of things.  Views that don't seem to mesh can be expected until both parties fully understand each other, then the whole becomes better than either alone.  Near impossible to do that on an online message board.

My version of what I think Jim is saying is that the primary defense against legal difficulties is to be dang sure that your client is happy.  Don't give him a reason to put your service under a microscope in the first place.  But that's not where I begin.

My contract has to cover every aspect and has work with applicable laws.  Client expectations need to be managed. A single wrong sentence in the report (or even the verbal) can turn your entire efforts upside down, etc.

You've got to be a practicing home inspector for quite a few years before you have a chance to understand every facet of minimizing your liabilities, and then an insurance guru who knows what she's talking about comes along and makes it better.

Edited by Marc
Make it better
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Marc said:

The two views are not opposing each other.  You and Jim are looking at different sides of the elephant.  He's from the inspector's view of the elephant,  you're from the insurance side of things.  Views that don't seem to mesh can be expected until both parties fully understand each other, then the whole becomes better than either alone.  Near impossible to do that on an online message board.

My version of what I think Jim is saying is that the primary defense against legal difficulties is to be dang sure that your client is happy.  Don't give him a reason to put your service under a microscope in the first place.  But that's not where I begin.

My contract has to cover every aspect and has work with applicable laws.  Client expectations need to be managed. A single wrong sentence in the report (or even the verbal) can turn your entire efforts upside down, etc.

You've got to be a practicing home inspector for quite a few years before you have a chance to understand every facet of minimizing your liabilities, and then an insurance guru who knows what she's talking about comes along and makes it better.

Great points, @Marc! Client expectations definitely need to be managed, and I think management of those expectations contributes to making clients happy. (i.e. When your client finds mold behind a wall during renovations, they're not going to point the finger at you if they have a good understanding of your inspection's scope and are satisfied with their interactions with you.) I think the same could be said about agent expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Great points, @Marc! Client expectations definitely need to be managed, and I think management of those expectations contributes to making clients happy. (i.e. When your client finds mold behind a wall during renovations, they're not going to point the finger at you if they have a good understanding of your inspection's scope and are satisfied with their interactions with you.) I think the same could be said about agent expectations.

Agent expectations? The agent is not the client, but a professional in service to the client, just like us.  We're two separate jurisdictions that happen to be next door to each other.  Any inspector recognition of agent expectations, or vice versa, when in service to the client and is contrary to the interests of the client, is to the detriment to that client.  It is a disservice to that client, and the bulk of it is not illegal.

Edited by Marc
Make it better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marc said:

Agent expectations? The agent is not the client, but a professional in service to the client, just like us.  We're two separate jurisdictions that happen to be next door to each other.  Any inspector recognition of agent expectations, or vice versa, when in service to the client and is contrary to the interests of the client, is to the detriment to that client.  It is a disservice to that client, and the bulk of it is not illegal.

Hi @Marc. I'm kind of confused by your response. You say that recognition of agent expectations can be a detriment to the client. What do you mean by that?

Here's some clarification on what I meant: Many home inspection clients turn to real estate agents not just for inspector recommendations but inspection information. As such, it can be helpful to make sure that the real estate agents involved understand the basic definition and scope of a home inspection. It also helps if agents know to direct questions and concerns about the inspection back to the inspector rather than weighing in themselves. We've seen some agents mitigate and other agents exacerbate issues for our inspector insureds based on their understanding (or lack of understanding) of home inspections. While it isn't a home inspector's duty to make real estate agents aware of basic home inspection protocol, helping set appropriate inspection expectations with agents can serve inspectors' and agents' shared clients immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Hi @Marc. I'm kind of confused by your response. You say that recognition of agent expectations can be a detriment to the client. What do you mean by that?

Here's some clarification on what I meant: Many home inspection clients turn to real estate agents not just for inspector recommendations but inspection information. As such, it can be helpful to make sure that the real estate agents involved understand the basic definition and scope of a home inspection. It also helps if agents know to direct questions and concerns about the inspection back to the inspector rather than weighing in themselves. We've seen some agents mitigate and other agents exacerbate issues for our inspector insureds based on their understanding (or lack of understanding) of home inspections. While it isn't a home inspector's duty to make real estate agents aware of basic home inspection protocol, helping set appropriate inspection expectations with agents can serve inspectors' and agents' shared clients immensely.

If the client is the buyer, he's in this transaction for the house and has an enormous stake in the fidelity of the inspection report.  The agent's stake in the purchase agreement is his commission.  He earns it if the house arrives at a closing.  He doesn't earn a penny otherwise.

Home inspection reports do not sell houses.  They're not intended to.  They're intended to reveal the issues with the house so that the buyer is informed on what he's getting for his money.  Buyer wants the best deal for his money.  Agents wants his commission.

The agent cannot make a fair decision on the best inspector for the client because he will be affected by the result.

Edited by Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Marc said:

If the client is the buyer, he's in this transaction for the house and has an enormous stake in the fidelity of the inspection report.  The agent's stake in the purchase agreement is his commission.  He earns it if the house arrives at a closing.  He doesn't earn a penny otherwise.

Home inspection reports do not sell houses.  They're not intended to.  They're intended to reveal the issues with the house so that the buyer is informed on what he's getting for his money.  Buyer wants the best deal for his money.  Agents wants his commission.

The agent cannot make a fair decision on the best inspector for the client because he will be affected by the result.

I agree with everything you said except the last part: "The agent cannot make a fair decision on the best inspector for the client because he will be affected by the result." This would mean that all agents would only refer clients to inspectors with "don't kill the deal" attitudes.

Based on anecdotal evidence of speaking with inspectors that receive realtor referrals, I don't believe this is the case. And, from a data standpoint, we're constantly looking for similarities between claims so that we can offer better risk management solutions to inspectors based on trends. In reviewing thousands of claims, we have yet to pick up on a correlation between realtor referrals and poor inspection practices. So, if one exits, it's not big enough to be blatantly obvious.

The bottom line: We don't have any evidence to suggest that receiving realtor referrals puts our clients at increased risk, either because of the agents' or their own actions. Until we do, we think it best to let the home inspectors individually decide if agent referrals are helpful or detrimental to their businesses and respect the decision either way.

Returning to the article that started this conversation: The intent of the article wasn't to endorse agent marketing or argue that all inspectors should market to agents. Rather, the intent was to explain a common insurance policy endorsement through the lens of something we know a lot of inspectors are doing: marketing to realtors. We hope that, by putting referring party indemnification in this frame, we can both better engage our readers and increase their understanding of how their policy applies outside of the "named insured."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

I agree with everything you said except the last part: "The agent cannot make a fair decision on the best inspector for the client because he will be affected by the result." This would mean that all agents would only refer clients to inspectors with "don't kill the deal" attitudes.

No Stephanie.  It just means that a client should not rely on an agent's recommendation of inspector.  If he wants to consider that recommendation, he should screen that inspector to verify to his satisfaction that he's a good inspector.  Don't act on that recommendation without doing so because it came from an agent that was compromised.

There's no better way to find a good inspector than to read his recent reports.  Nothing, not his certs, not his association memberships, not his designations, nor his years of experience, reveal his performance as well as reading his reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marc said:

No Stephanie.  It just means that a client should not rely on an agent's recommendation of inspector.  If he wants to consider that recommendation, he should screen that inspector to verify to his satisfaction that he's a good inspector.  Don't act on that recommendation without doing so because it came from an agent that was compromised.

There's no better way to find a good inspector than to read his recent reports.  Nothing, not his certs, not his association memberships, not his designations, nor his years of experience, reveal his performance as well as reading his reports.

I agree with that. It's in everyone's best interest--especially the client--that the client properly vet the inspector they're using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 1:27 PM, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Client expectations definitely need to be managed, and I think management of those expectations contributes to making clients happy.

Some folks never need to "manage" anyone's expectations.  They're the ones that consistently and assiduously exceed all expectations.

There seems to be some of those types of folks here at the Inspector's Journal.  It's evident in replies to this topic and many others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bill Kibbel said:

Some folks never need to "manage" anyone's expectations.  They're the ones that consistently and assiduously exceed all expectations.

There seems to be some of those types of folks here at the Inspector's Journal.  It's evident in replies to this topic and many others.

I agree with you.  The "real" issue, to my mind, is Marc and Sephanie are not finding a clear cut avenue to agreement.  I cringed with she wrote about their statistics and no correlation between claims and relationships with agents.  much more complex than that.  However, she may have done a statistical analysis on the question and there are factors she is not talking aout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Les said:

I agree with you.  The "real" issue, to my mind, is Marc and Sephanie are not finding a clear cut avenue to agreement.  I cringed with she wrote about their statistics and no correlation between claims and relationships with agents.  much more complex than that.  However, she may have done a statistical analysis on the question and there are factors she is not talking aout.

I learned something important about the issue in my exchanges with Stephanie. Something that refines my understanding of it and tempers my disgust with agents that I've carried for over a decade.

Maybe she'll learn something too.  Takes time.

Edited by Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 10:28 AM, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Teach your local realtors about your insurance policy's referring party indemnification coverage, and you may be able to improve your referral rate.

the above statement alone is disgusting...

teaching others how to ride on an insurance policy is absurd...

relying on this tactic to gain referrals is appalling...

to me

hth

Edited by BADAIR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...