Good Inspector Bad Inspector

[jferry]

Originally Posted by kswift

Alone, with others, dragged in first, or last, what difference does it make?

The difference it makes is in how you originally characterized the case. I defy anyone to read your first several posts and not conclude that the plaintiff had sued only you and got a windfall settlement from a totally innocent bystander because your insurance company did not have the guts to defend a certifiably winnable case.

Since that scenario runs counter to every litigation experience and every trial lawyer instinct that I have ever had in a twenty-year career as a trial lawyer representing both plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation, my BS meter was redlining into the never-exceed zone.

When I expressed thorough astonishment that the plaintiff's attorney would sue you, who had multiple defenses and not the fraudulent home seller who had no defenses, you finally owned up to the fact that the seller had, indeed, been sued because that dog would no longer hunt.

Now, it turns out that multiple parties were sued and you and your company were the last ones named, a sure sign that you were not the target of a 'terrorist'.

Originally Posted by kswift

I was totally innocent and victimized. That's the point, and that's what I'm warning inspectors about.

I agree. You were totally victimized and totally innocent. And that is why I doubt very seriously that your insurer paid very much to get out of this suit, if anything. There is no upside for a plaintiff to keep a defendant in a lawsuit that has legitimate defenses, as you certainly did in this instance, especially when there are so many other culpable parties already in the suit.

I join you in warning inspectors of the litigation exposure that they face as a collateral effect of being a professional. I could not agree more with you on that.

Originally Posted by kswift

It happened to me and it has happened to hundreds of others, and without tort reform or attorneys showing some respect for truth and justice it will continue.

It seems to me that the legal system worked pretty well in this case. The aggrieved home buyer got her day in court against the culpable agent/home seller and you got out of the case with very little fuss after your attorney had demonstrated to the plaintiff's attorney that you did nothing wrong. It happens several times a day in court cases all over this country.

Originally Posted by kswift

Joe, knowing that I carried insurance, would you have named me if you were the client's attorney?

Whether or not you had insurance would have played absolutely no role in the decision whether or not to sue you. The ony factor that has any relevance is whether or not you had culpability. Unfortunately, the plaintiff's attorney does not know that until he does sue you and finds out through the system that you, in fact, have no culpability. Under prevailing rules of civil procedure, plaintiffs are required to name everyone whom they believe may be liable to them in the same case. So that's why you were named in this one notwithstanding that you had no culpability.

Originally Posted by kswift

And as for interpreting what I wrote, you came damn close to calling me a liar.

Better go back and read my posts. I did no such thing. I expressed considerable shock that any case with the magnitude of damages that this one had could have unfolded in the manner that you described and suggested that you had a malpractice case against your attorney.

Originally Posted by kswift

As to the client's attorney, he is nothing but a cheap crook. He knows it, you know it, and I doubt any inspector reading this thread would disagree.

I don't know any such thing. To judge solely by the dockets, I would surmise that he is a very thorough attorney who sued every party he thought might be liable to his client and then dismissed the non-culpable parties from a suit that they did not belong in.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Joe, legal wrangling, obfuscation. If you were enclined to believe me, why didn't you simply post: "Keith, were you the only one named in this lawsuit?" "Thorough attorney:" that's your final word? He knew that the house was pristine when I inspected it, as did his client. In addition, his own expert witnesses confirmed deliberate concealment, and you characterize him as "thorough?" Oh, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

[jferry]

Originally Posted by kswift

Joe, legal wrangling, obfuscation. If you were enclined to believe me, why didn't you simply post: "Keith, were you the only one named in this lawsuit?"

I did post that. I posted that I could not believe that you were sued and the seller was not. You made two subsequent posts without clearing the air and finally on post # 19 acknowledged that, oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that the seller was also sued.

Originally Posted by kswift

"Thorough attorney:" that's your final word? He knew that the house was pristine when I inspected it, as did his client. In addition, his own expert witnesses confirmed deliberate concealment, and you characterize him as "thorough?" Oh, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

That his expert witness confirmed 'deliberate concealment' is undoubtedly the reason that you were dismissed from this suit. So justice did prevail.

[rwand1]

I think many lawyers steer their clients into a law suit knowing full well that case law does not always support the outcome the attorney portrays as being the outcome or wishes the outcome will be in favour.

I am involved in a case now where the purchaser is suing the vendor for undisclosed issues, had a home inspector, and there was a Vendor Disclosure Form. Case law up here suggests the puchaser is not going to win, too many cases on file which don't support the plaintiff position.

[jferry]

Originally Posted by rwand1

I think many lawyers steer their clients into a law suit knowing full well that case law does not always support the outcome the attorney portrays as being the outcome or wishes the outcome will be in favour.

Raymond, I know that this is an article of faith for you but put on your agnostic's hat for a moment. What possible upside is there for a professional to do that? There is absolutely no upside in a contingent fee case, as I suspect that most cases against HIs are. Even in an hourly fee case, the lawyer is sure to run into a fee dispute when the client finds out that there was no there, there.

Originally Posted by rwand

I am involved in a case now where the purchaser is suing the vendor for undisclosed issues, had a home inspector, and there was a Vendor Disclosure Form. Case law up here suggests the puchaser is not going to win, too many cases on file which don't support the plaintiff position.

Wha-ha-ha-ha-aaaat?!!? There are cases that support a vendor who has not disclosed issues on the Vendor Disclosure Form????!!!

Let's put that 51st State idea on hold, folks.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by jferry

That his expert witness confirmed 'deliberate concealment' is undoubtedly the reason that you were dismissed from this suit. So justice did prevail.

"It goes without saying that there could be no denying the obvious, and that my insurance company happily paid to get me out of a very expensive lawsuit. However, it also goes without saying that I was not at fault, and could not possibly have known that the nasty seller/agent had failed to disclose knowledge of structural movement, and had deliberately concealed the evidence of movement. And, furthermore, he had completed the entire renovation without applying for even a single permit. Knowing what I know now about the expansive soils in this particular area, I am not likely to be victimized again, but let me tell you this was a very expensive lawsuit, which resulted in an even more expensive renovation. I drive by the house every once in awhile, knowing that it not only looks very elegant but that it has been structurally stabilized by caissons. " Am I missing some thing Kieth's insurance paid money out .How is that "

Originally Posted by jferry

That his expert witness confirmed 'deliberate concealment' is undoubtedly the reason that you were dismissed from this suit. So justice did prevail.

" He was dismissed from the suit and his insurance goes up

Roy Cooke sr

[jferry]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Am I missing some thing Kieth's insurance paid money out .How is that

I sincerely doubt that his carrier paid a cent to get out of this suit.

Originally Posted by rcooke

He was dismissed from the suit and his insurance goes up
Roy Cooke sr

He didn't say his insurance went up.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

I was innocent, everyone knew it, and I should never have been named. Now you know it, and yet you still choose to champion a sleazy attorney by defending him as being "thorough." What about "truth," Joe, or is that too lofty an ideal?

[rwand1]

Joe,
Until recently contingent fees were not allowed up here. I think they have been permitted within the last 2-3 years. And thats a good thing because as you suggest a lawyer nowing his stuff will rely on his knowledge and case law as to the outcome and decline the case knowing he will not collect a fee.

As to warranties implied by the vendor, if the vendor in good faith provides a property disclosure without misrepsentation, and the purchaser views and examines the property and retains a home inspector, I think the courts will want absolute proof that the vendor concealed problems knowingly. Pretty hard to prove the intent to decieve, by misrepesentation or fraud I think.

Am I a lawyer? No. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

[mjohnson6]

Originally Posted by kswift

The truth is what I've been repeating, regardless of pictures: "once you've been named in a lawsuit you're toast." In this case, even the expert witnesses on the plaintiffs' side confirmed with video-documentation that there had been deliberate concealment, and everyone knew that the residence had been copmpletely renovated. In short, I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and justice did not prevail.

This story is so typical
How do we fix that? I think just accepting it is not acceptable.
Sorry you went through that Keith.