2011 ALTA standards

hellsangle · Post by **hellsangle** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:26 am

For your information: See attached effective 23 Feb 2011
'n have fun at the conference! :*(
Phil-Sonoma

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:18 am

Certification - The plat or map of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall bear only the following certification, unaltered, ...

Hurray!

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:24 am

And this is has been added to Table A, item 11(b):

However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:55 am

I still want to know who got paid off and how much by the insurance companies to put item #21 in.
Negotiable - yea right.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:20 pm

What is the purpose of a Land Title Survey?

Are the client’s needs being met by a lowballer who might or might not be around in 6 months?

I’ve got no problem with that requirement. I carried well above average limits when I had my company. This company does the same. If there’s a strange requirement for additional insurance, we can always pick it up on a one time, project basis and pass the cost along to the client.

It’s about time that the REAL cost of doing business was factored in to what we do. The WAG for an hourly rate doesn’t belong in a professional business.

.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:51 pm

Je ne comprends pas "WAG"

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:41 pm

SteveGardner wrote:Dane - I believe in Ian's hipster lingo that translates to "Wild-a$$ guess".

And only Dane would do it in French. Dratted Frogs.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:34 pm

I fail to see the correlation between doing a good survey and having to have E&O ins.
To me E&O is for professionals that do shoddy work.
If you do your job right then you don't need insurance.

rpost · Post by **rpost** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:38 am

I am of the belief that any licensed surveyor should be able to perform any survey if he is capable. That being said, if the client wants some form of recourse for an incorrect/poor/incompetent/etc. survey (these exist), it is his right to require insurance. Certain clients probably assume that the professional they are using have insurance and have been let down in the past. This is most likely the reason for the option, not some convoluted conspiracy.

Also, get insurance if you want to do an ALTA Survey that includes the E&O option. You should already have it!

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:10 am

A couple of these post have really made me think that sometimes it is just better not to say anything. Cause once I do, people will know just how "out to lunch" I am.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:33 am

Tom Milo wrote:"To me E&O is for professionals that do shoddy work.
If you do your job right then you don't need insurance."

Some clients require insurance coverage. It is not about doing the job right or shoddy work. Even if you do the best work, you can still be sued or have a claim made against you. You can still be right and lose your house, retirement, etc.

Incorporate, then if you get sued you can close up on Fri and reopen on Mon with a different name. Happens all the time.

And many E&O policies have such high deductibles in reality they are useless for most survey issues.

IMO if my client wants ins he can ask for it, but why make it a red flag in the options list. I guess I would add to #21 "available at substantial extra cost, not necessary if the surveyor does his job properly".

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:01 am

Not true, Land. The corporate veil is very easy to pierce when it can be shown that there is no corporation without your license. Hate to burst your bubble, but that protection can be removed by a 1st year law student.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:25 am

I like #21, because it forces the client to think about it at bid / contract time. If they didn't, then when they ask for an insurance certificate you can charge them. If they did, you know if you need specific coverage.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:19 am

"then when they ask for an insurance certificate you can charge them."

I'm not sure that would work out very well in the real world. If you already have E&O coverage, charging extra for it just because the contract didn't specify it seems kind of dicey to me. There's no additional cost or liability exposure, so what does the client gain in exchange for an additional fee? This sounds like a good way to alienate a client, and possibly kill the contract.

If you don't already have E&O coverage, trying to get a project-specific policy for a project the size of most ALTAs on short notice doesn't sound very tenable either. The application process for a policy renewal can take weeks, and I would expect a new policy application to be just as time-consuming if not more so. The time delay alone might be enough to kill the contract. Furthermore, I expect the insurers have a minimum premium that would be way out of proportion to the ALTA survey fee.

As much as I hate writing that E&O premium check every year -- mine's coming up later this month -- I'd probably be out of business without the coverage because I'd no longer be eligible for the public agency contracts that have been instrumental in keeping me afloat. I don't expect the ALTA spec change to push any more private-sector ALTA surveys my way, but if it does I won't be complaining.

.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:26 pm

Good old public agency policies, they can't be held responsible for anything, no matter how bad they screw up, but they want everyone else insured to the hilt.
Hypocrites.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:00 pm

I don't see anything hypocritical in the situation. Public agencies, like other contracting entities, want the consultants with whom they contract to take responsibility for their services. The fact that public agencies generally deny claims made against them as a matter of policy is a wholly unrelated matter.

As a taxpayer, I'm reassured that public agencies aren't in the habit of paying off claims without first contesting them. Were that not the case, the number of fraudulent claims would be even higher than it already is.

.