LEGAL: Ask NACHI's Attorney Joe Ferry, Dedicated Thread.

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



http://www.abitcoinc.com/serv01.htm



GRADUATE FROM A LICENSED HOME INSPECTOR TRAINING SCHOOL!


The complete Home Inspector Training course includes 12 1/2 days, a full 100 hours of classroom training in compliance with New York State License requirements.


Further down in the list is this....

After completing our course you may be eligible to apply for licensing in New York Our training will prove to be invaluable in most other states as well.

See this thread,

http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?p=168846&highlight=#168846


--
NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Chuck: What are you saying… that it isn’t a “licensed home inspector training school” or that it isn’t a licensed school at all.


And why would taking this course make you ineligable to apply for a home inspection license?

And why wouldn't this training be valuable to someone in any state?



Specifically which quote from his website is false?


--
Nick Gromicko
Founder
dues=79cents/day.

I much prefer email to private messages.

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I never said false, I said misleading.


Robert O'conner wrote,

Is ABITC only licensed as a trade school through the NYS Dept of Education (as all private trade schools are licensed)?

Is it approved by the New York State Dept of State (NYSDOS) for the required 140 hours of training to obtain a NY HI license starting 12/31/05?

My understanding is the NYSDOS has NOT approved ANY schools for the license training. In fact I am not aware that the NYSDOS has even published the final guidelines for approval of HI training.


I was seeking legal advice from Joe Ferry, Not Nick the crap house attorney. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif) Isn't this fun?


--
NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jhagarty wrote:
http://www.abitcoinc.com/news.htm

?As of March 9, 2005 ABITCO was provided with the only Home Inspector Training License to teach potential Home Inspectors in the state of New York by way of a 100 hour classroom instruction program.?

They claim to be the Only Licensed School presently in New York.



--
Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



gromicko wrote:

And why would taking this course make you ineligable to apply for a home inspection license?



And how does it make you eligable?


--
NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Lots of lawyers here…Thanks Joe H.



NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



As I understand the issue with ABITCO, the State of New York has yet to develop and publish a curriculum that it has approved for licensing. Once it does, that approval will be granted by the office of the Secretary of State.


ABITCO, anticipating what it thinks the cirriculum may require, has developed a 100 hour course that is approved- not by the Secretary of STate, but instead by the Department of Education.

Since the actual prescribed cirriculum has yet to be developed and, when it is, it will need to be approved by the Secretary of State - the cirriculum presently in effect at ABITCO has NOT been approved by the State of New York for licensing qualification. Any claim that is made to that effect is false and misleading.

One thing that we know for certain about the cirriculum that the State will require is that the school must provide 40 hours of actual home inspection (in an actual home) training. This is presently not included in ABITCO's cirriculum.

So....getting back to Chuck's question -

Since ABITCO is owned by a NACHI member, how would you interpret the COE as it applies to this member's marketing of his school on his web page?


--
Home Inspection Services of Missouri
www.missourihomeinspection.com

"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org

Originally Posted By: rspriggs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe, thank you very much for providing this legal column. Again and always, NACHI is tops!


Now-
Considering the way NACHI's SOP's are written, and my agreement with both my E&O / GL Insurance companies to abide by those Standards of Practice, I am wondering about a couple instances & how you would handle them (the RE agent had an issue with how I conducted myself, in each case):

1. With an attic access hatch, newer house, in which the hatch has been caulked and sealed shut, and painted to match the ceiling, not in a closet but in a common area like a hall or laundry room-
In the course of a normal home inspection, without the permission of the homeowner, would you perform destructive entry by cutting that caulk and paint seal in order to inspect the attic area, or would you first inform the client / agent that you would need permission from the homeowner before performing such entry?

2. On a property with a sprinkler system with a vacant house, would you operate the sprinkler system as a normal part of your inspection, or would you advise the client to either have it inspected by the appropriate technicians / have the owner demonstrate that it is working properly?

Thanks for your comments-

Russ


--
Exploring Planet NACHI . . . One house at a time.

Russ Spriggs,
Idaho Chapter Pres.
Coeur d'Alene, ID Home Inspectors
Coeur d'Alene Home Inspectors

Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe a couple of questions.


1. Adhesion, in my contract the client has 5 days from the receipt of the report to cancel the contract and nullify the report. Any thoughts?

2. Asset Protection, I have E&O and an LLC. Thoughts on both.

Thank You

BK


--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hello, eusa_wall.gif Is this think on? Check check 1, 2 …



NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: rspriggs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



You don’t really expect a (free) lawyer’s office to be open on weekends, do you, Chuck?!


icon_rolleyes.gif


Russ



Exploring Planet NACHI . . . One house at a time.


Russ Spriggs,
Idaho Chapter Pres.
Coeur d'Alene, ID Home Inspectors
Coeur d'Alene Home Inspectors

Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


We are wondering Can we use CHI in Canada. There is an association in BC that states they own the rites to CHI . Thanks Roy Cooke sr.


This has just came up again


I have just received a letter from ASTTBC that we all using Certified Home Inspector ,and they will take legal remedy in this matter. They tell me to stop using CHI Certified Home Inspector by February 4 2005.
Please let me know how do we protect our Certified Home Inspector of NACHI ?



Don't fret. Do not reply until the last possible moment. There is lots of time.

First of all you should try and obtain a copy of any relevant provincial statute that may exist which gives ASTTBC the authority for sole use or issuance of CHI.

Secondly if they have no provincial authority to grant CHI I would assume ASTTBC maybe set up as non-profit, without share capital association?

Any relevant documents you have should be forward to NACHI and I would love to see a copy of the letter ASTTBC sent you and any other info you have on ASTTBC.



I will assist anyway I can even though I am in Ontario and perhaps we can do some research from this end or help pointing you in the right direction.


More food for thought.

I don't want to rain on your parade here - but it will require another title North of the U.S. Border - such as suggested Certified Full Member. Even adding the next level up "Professional" could be protested as too much of a similarity.

Just for your information for the Canadian members - CHI and Certified Home Inspector is a protected Trademark in Canada.

http://www.asttbc.org/


http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0909/trdp090934800e.html

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/T-13/105826.html#rid-105870
--


--
Roy Cooke Sr.

http://Royshomeinspection.com

Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ferry is free…? That’s news to me, I thought all lawyers over billed.



NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Welcome aboard Mr. Ferry,


No disrespect to our learned colleague, and for the benefit of Mr. Cooke and other Canadian Inspectors....


I would caution Canadians asking an American Lawyer about Canadian law as it applies to Tort law and Contract law in Canada.

As per the question does my limit of liability in my contract ...

We know in Canada, that the contract between home inspector and client is to be presented up front to the client so he/she knows the conditions and limitations up front before signing.

If the conditions are clearly spelled out in everyday language and they sign the contract it is valid. However no contract is going to protect you from negligence framed as Negligent Misrepresentation. This is what most Canadian Inspectors will be sued under.

As defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, in Queen v. Cognos there are 5 items that must be proven by the plaintiff. They are:
Because the core of the service provided by the home inspector is the advice given regarding the condition of the home, claims against home inspectors in superior courts have been pleaded and considered by the court in the context of the tort of negligent misrepresentation. The five elements to be proven in that tort, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Queen v. Cognos Inc. (1993) 99 D.L.R. (4th) 626, are well established:

1. there must be a duty of care based on a special relationship between the parties,

2. the representation made by one party to the other must be false, inaccurate or misleading,

3. the representation must be made negligently,

4. the person to whom the representation is made must have reasonably relied on the representation and,

5. the reliance must have been detrimental to that person with the consequence of his suffering damages.

The third requirement that "the representation must be made negligently" one presumes will fall to be determined by application of the test applicable to other types of "professional negligence", namely, that the home inspector failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent home inspector in those circumstances and at that time.

As referenced at:
Brownjohn v. Pillar to Post
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcpc/2003/2003bcpc2.html

Queen v. Cognos. Inc. (Supreme Court of Canada)
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1993/1993scc3.html

I belive and I stand to be corrected that if the Plaintiffs fail to prove just one of the five conditions then the contract and its conditions will be valid and negligent misrepresentation will be invalid.

In other Provinces (I think British Columbia is one Province) there may be laws on the books which will not allow liability limits to the fee because there is legislation that prevents such contracts under the guise that it is against good public policy.

Again thank you for your help and input. This is a great service to Nachi members! Thanks Nick and Mr. Ferry.


--
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca

Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



For your edification and delectation…


Li v. Baker Street Home Inspection Services Inc.

Citation : 2005 CanLII 32919 (ONTARIO SUPREME COURT.)
Date: August 9, 2005
Language: en
Ontario > Superior Court of Justice

http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2005/2005onsc14571.html

Note Queen v. Cognos Inc. is referenced in the decision, along with other cases.


--
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (OAHI)
http://www.raymondwand.ca

Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I have sent the following email to the New York State Division of Licensing Services. When I hear back from it, I will post its reply here.


"To whom it may concern:

I am General Counsel to the National Association of Certified Home Inspectors ("NACHI"). I understand that New York State is contemplating requiring Home Inspectors to be licensed by the state and that individuals entering the home inspecion industry after January 1, 2006 will have to undergo 100 hours of instruction in order to be licensed.

Are there currently any schools licensed by the New York to provide this instruction? If so, please identify them.

On behalf of the NACHI membership, as well as myself, I thank for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours.


Joseph A. Ferry

Joseph A. Ferry, Esquire
Two Penn Center Plaza
Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19102

215-854-6444 tel.
215-243-8202 fax"


Originally Posted By: cmccann
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Alright, sounds good. Thanks,



NACHI MAB!

Originally Posted By: pehrenpreis
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Asked to post to (into) this thread.


http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=15992

Thanks,

Peter


Originally Posted By: jferry
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Russ -


I would not perform any invasive/destructive actions without the permission of the homeowner.

I would advise the client/agent to have the homeowner have the sprinkler system tested.

And I would cover all of that in your inspection report. "The attic could not be accessed without damaging the premises [explain]."

"The sprinkler system could not be tested without damaging the premises. Client should insist on a current certification of the sprinkler system by a licensed professional."

Words to that effect.


Originally Posted By: rspriggs
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe, thanks for your reply!


I just wanted to be sure I did the right thing, and I did!


Russ



Exploring Planet NACHI . . . One house at a time.


Russ Spriggs,
Idaho Chapter Pres.
Coeur d'Alene, ID Home Inspectors
Coeur d'Alene Home Inspectors