Timd, I can't site a case where MARI has been sued. But, I would be willing to bet that with a decent lawyer you could challenge successfully the MARI liability waiver.
There is a conceptual problem with the waiver: discovery. How does one discover that they are reported on MARI in a manner that is damaging their ability to conduct business? There are two methods. One is getting a copy of one's report through a second party. The other is to sign up for their service and waiving one's rights to sue them. There are no reasonable expectations that another entity is going to release a copy of the report and thereby opening themselves to breach of contract/confidentiality suits. So, one is left with signing the waiver and obtaining the report. If one can prove that the report is erroneous and attempts to work from within the system that MARI may or may not have in place to correct such data fail then there is only one recourse of action to take. Sue MARI. But, one waived their rights and according to you, Timd, one is screwed. This is where I disagree. An entity cannot damage one's reputation based on factually inaccurate information and then require one to hold said entity harmless. The accuracy with which MARI based its report would have to be proven inaccurate in a court of law inorder to challenge MARI's hold harmless clause. One would most likely have to prove that MARI's procedures for verifying such information is not sufficient. And if the typical industry blacklists are any indication then that would not be to hard to prove. A good lawyer could parade example after example of erroneously blacklisted appraisers, especially those that were blacklisted for not making value. I think there are several examples of that on this forum somewhere that I've read. And because the industry does not provide any real recourse for blacklisted appraisers to appeal such listings, including MARI, the only other option is litigation. Of course, all of this would take lots of money, lots of time. So, understand, Timd, while MARI makes you sign the waiver it would not necessarily be upheld in a court of law. But, then MARI knows this. The gamble is that their pockets are deeper than those that might sue. The waiver only serves as a barrier to litigation not an unsurmountable ironclad agreement. It is a deterrent. One that seems to have deterred you. If one makes $60,000 a year is it economically feasible for one to spend several tens of thousands of dollars or much more on a gamble? Does one have the deep pockets necessary to litigate such an agreement for years? Probably not. And this is the purpose that such one sided agreements serve.
You used the example of LSI or RELS fees in their contracts. That is not the same kind of situation. One can't sue LSI or RELS for their low fees. They have not placed any unreasonable encumbrances upon one's ability to conduct business. One is free to work for or not work for LSI or RELS. If the LSI and RELS agreement stated that one may not appraise for another entity and that such a contract would be in effect for 10 years then one may have legal recourse. However, such an agreement may be upheld in a court of law since one had opportunity to read such an agreement before entering into it and the encumbrance being placed upon them.
With the situation of MARI they may or may not be damaging one's business. But, they place an unreasonable encumbrance upon anyone attempting to determine this. The reality is a court may side with MARI or it may not. Anything can be litigated. That's the beauty of the system. All it takes is lots of money. And that is the gamble MARI is making.
If one signed the waiver and then MARI would start monitoring one's performance and had a process to appeal their findings, then I'd say it would be an ironclad waiver of one's rights. But, MARI doesn't do this.
Am I smarter than the suits at MARI? I don't know. And neither do you. One thing I know is just because a company requires an agreement with them does not necessarily mean it can be upheld in a court of law. Many agreements are written because they allow an entity to have leverage over a situation.
