Association Urges Voters to Defeat "Anti-Insurer Ballot Initiative" in Arizona
West News • November 4, 2008
The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America is urging voters in Arizona to defeat Proposition 201, the "Homeowners Bill of Rights."
According to the ballot proposition, current Arizona ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Twisted words
Posted On: November 4, 2008, 11:08 am CST
Posted By: Cindy
Comment:
Saying the existing 'right to repair law' reduces lawsuits is kind of twisted isn't it? Yeah, it 'reduces lawsuits' by hamstringing the home buyer so they have less legal recourse when a builder builds a defective house. The industry has gotten 'right to repair' passed in at least half the states I believe. The laws are for builders, not consumers.
A homeowner with a badly built house, even one that's uninhabitable and unsafe, finds that builder friendly laws, and rights-stripping arbitration clauses have given them almost no recourse.
Arbitration is often biased in the industry's favor mainly due to the repeat-player effect between these corporations and the arbitrators. One construction arbitration firm was actually run by a disbarred lawyer. The homeowner rarely wins, or if they do, they "win" a fraction of their actual damages.
Because individual cases are not profitable to lawyers most of the time, homeowners who can sue may not be able to retain quality legal help. This means many individual cases are not resolved, but the homeowner eats the loss and tries to move on. Even if they win a case they may never collect, or they may only collect part of the judgment. These facts are almost never reported in mainstream media which prefers to focus on the rare large-sounding award, without adding things that often happen such as a judge reducing the amount, most of the award going to pay for the expense of trying the case, the builder appealing, or the homeowner never collecting.
A law that would undo the harm caused by a 'right to repair law' passed by builders would be a good thing for consumers. If builders really want to reduce lawsuits, there is only one ethical, common sense way to do it; build houses right in the first place, and honor their warranties without a fight.
West News 
Subject: Twisted words
A homeowner with a badly built house, even one that's uninhabitable and unsafe, finds that builder friendly laws, and rights-stripping arbitration clauses have given them almost no recourse.
Arbitration is often biased in the industry's favor mainly due to the repeat-player effect between these corporations and the arbitrators. One construction arbitration firm was actually run by a disbarred lawyer. The homeowner rarely wins, or if they do, they "win" a fraction of their actual damages.
Because individual cases are not profitable to lawyers most of the time, homeowners who can sue may not be able to retain quality legal help. This means many individual cases are not resolved, but the homeowner eats the loss and tries to move on. Even if they win a case they may never collect, or they may only collect part of the judgment. These facts are almost never reported in mainstream media which prefers to focus on the rare large-sounding award, without adding things that often happen such as a judge reducing the amount, most of the award going to pay for the expense of trying the case, the builder appealing, or the homeowner never collecting.
A law that would undo the harm caused by a 'right to repair law' passed by builders would be a good thing for consumers. If builders really want to reduce lawsuits, there is only one ethical, common sense way to do it; build houses right in the first place, and honor their warranties without a fight.