Insurers not wanting to budge.

Hi Focus Group;

I was looking at SPPI and it looks a better business model than to have annual premium policys’.

Maybe discussions with AIG can scale it to all sized projects.

https://www.aig.com.au/business/products/financial-lines/professional-indemnity-insurance

Thanks

Hello All

congratulations on providing this forum for building surveying professionsals.

i attach extracts of a heart on my sleeve communique i recently sent to HPW. (March 2020)

"There is a strong Likelyhood that mandatory PI will continue up to at least the state election.

In the meantimethere will be over 180 building surveyors through PI insurance renewal.

Based upon current trends there could be 20+ certifiers unable to continue in this profession in that short time frame to the election. (real numbers is we are down to just over 375 building certifiers - April 2020)

We have been adviced that mandatory PI insurance is to preserve consumer protection.

Consumer protection extends from the time one is first licensed as a private certifier till now. in my case all my previous clients back to may 1998.

If I as a Building Surveyor cannot get a renewal or cannot afford a renewal for Private Certification Professional Indemnity Insurance i will loose my license and all my previous clients will loose their consumer protection.

Mandatory PI Insurance as prescribed in the Building Act and section 52 of the Building Regulation 2006 places us in a position of being held over a barrel by the insurers.

If Mandatory PI Insurance was lifted from being a section 52 criterion to similar of that prescribed in the Architects Act or the Engineers Act then we could achieve some tailored insurance to suit our business/risk profile and still provide protection to our consumers.

Private building certifiers are, and will continue to be the target for litigation as we are the profession with mandatory PI.

Consideration should be given by Government as to who are the entities that are seeking compensation from Private certifiers. Is it the client or other parties seeking access to a pool of funds seeing we are the profession with the key.

The current model is nothing but a convienience to appease builders, developers and some commercial consumers to be able to join or sue a private certifier in a building construction litigation.

Building certifiers do not build, however we are the obvious target in any action regarding alleged defective building work.

There are many other legislative frameworks that give adequate consumer protection regarding defective building work.

1. Lack of supervision on the part of the contractor responsible;

2. Poor or shoddy building work on the part of the contractor;

3. Inadequate design;

4. Misleading or deceptive behaviour

5. Non conforming building products in the chain of responsibility.

If you follow the likely respondants to the above aspects the building certifier is very low on the list.

I ask the question with all these protections under other statute law and subordinate legislation, why does the building certifier need to be made a respondant to an issue that involves matter where they are not the wrong doer.

A building certifier should only be responsible for their inactions and not those of others.

If we were all truly serious about giving consumer protection then all professional should have PI not as a license condition but as a means of demonstrating fitness and proprietry under the code of conduct or rules of their profession.

Why would the ICA want to change from mandatory PI? In my opinion the ICA is dictating the terms and the Government should step in and actually do something about it. I don't believe that is going to happen in the near future being an election coming up and there are easier votes to get than ours.

I agree P.I. insurance should be voluntary