Home Inspection IS NOT ABOUT SAFETY

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bwiley

The safety aspects of the inspection cannot be overstated in their importance.

If you believe that then the SoP need to be rewritten with much more emphasis and clarity on safety or an optional SoP developed. The current NACHI SoP understate safety.

Originally Posted by bwiley

While you may get sued for missing a leaking pool, you almost assuredly will get sued when a child drowns and you didn't point out that the $5 lock on the pool gate wasn't working.

Pool inspections are beyond the scope of ASHI, CREIA, AHIA, TAREI, IG, NABIE, NAHI (pardon me) and NACHI. There is no requirement to look at the pool or the gate. The padlock is as irrelavent to home inspection as asbestos and lead paint.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Instead, they pay another inspector to testify against you claiming that the majority of inspections performed in your area normally exceed the SoP. You are then no longer judged against your SoP but against an arbitrary level of care that they establish, which includes all of the things they say you missed. Its a vicious circle no doubt.

Well we can roll over and continue to expand our service to oblivian or we can fight back with alternative products the client chooses AND pays for.

[Brian E. Kelly]

1.2. A Material defect is a condition with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the real property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property.

From the NACHI SOP, what pray tell is an unreasonable risk. NO Pool fence? Lack of GFCI's? Transite vent pipe? Lead paint?

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

As an reply to John Bowman's question as to a specific verse in our COE, the verbiage is plain and worthwhile. It deals with the confidentiality of the inspection report, except as may be required by law (law always trumps the SOP and COE), and otheres where, I believe, an obvious safety issue is apparent. For instance, I think we should notify the homeowner if his/her deck is pulling away from their house, or is the drop wire is burning.

I disagree. It is not plain. It implies there is a requirement to inspect for safety where such is not clearly defined in the SoP. It is a loop hole a lawyer can drive a truck through. Your SoP and Ethics are causing the problem.

A deck pulling away from a home and a drop wire burning are two good examples of imminent risk items. The problem is you leave the door open for ALL safety items to be included. There are many types of safety and priorities. NACHI does not define them.

Do you want the inspection to assure safety in a home? Then change your scope and defintions to clearly state that. IF protecting the consumer is your argument then make the requirement clear and simple for the consumer and attorney to see.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

From the NACHI SOP, what pray tell is an unreasonable risk. NO Pool fence? Lack of GFCI's? Transite vent pipe? Lead paint?

Good observation Mr. Kelly. Unreasonable is an ambiguous word that attorneys hang you with.

HOWEVER that only applies to those items required for inspection by the SoP.

On the other hand I think NACHI SoP do not require inspection of any of your examples.

NO Pool fence? Pools and fences not required by SoP
Lack of GFCI's? Comparing home to new code not required by SoP
Transite vent pipe? Asbestos not required by SoP
Lead paint? Lead not required by SoP

In these cases I would argue "unreasonable" does not apply. Sure an attorney will argue they do; sure an E&O provider will settle. I believe you can defend yourself with the SoP on these matters.

IF you believe the SoP offers no defense then I motion to abandon them in their entirety and simply inspect as a prudent inspector would.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jbushart

John,

The insurance companies compile..then safeguard and protect from disclosure...the real numbers, but logically speaking...here are a few factors to consider. Law suits that go to court are rare. Even E&O salesmen admit this. Most are settled out of court. "Negligence" is the means of collecting punitive damages which would exceed the actual damages. Thus, it only makes sense that a lawyer going for the biggest check he can get (from which to collect his 30% contingency fee) will allege negligence to go after the bigger reward....when there is E&O in the equation. When there is not, negligence becomes a non-issue, and settlement efforts are made to collect a portion for actual loss. In cases where E&O is not there to motivate a claim of negligence and request for punitive damages...and where the likelihood of a case actually going to trial is lessened even more than the few that actually do...I think that there is more emphasis placed upon the agreement and the SOP. Accordingly, the agreement and SOP are important. Now, should you be foolish enough to advertise that you somehow "exceed the SOP", it would not matter what it read. You are stuck with whatever interpretation that your client and the court want to assign to "exceed" up to and including the discovery of hidden or latent issues. But that's another argument....

I agree with you.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Could you please list some common safety issues the we as inspectors can look at, step over, ignore... and how the SoP will protect us? Please be specific and tell me how the injury
that follows an unsafe condition will not be my responsibility.

Sure. First I do not think you will get sued unless you really screwed up and / or you have assets / insurance. The FREA guy mentioned lawsuits were about 1 - 3000 range now. I remember when they were 1 - 1000. That means lawsuits are down. The average inspector only gets sued once every 10 years if they do 300 inspections a year. Still as Mr Swift states you already lost when you get sued.

We need to debate imminent safety, potential safety, old code compared to new code safety, safety relative to use (kids and elderly for example), risk to property, risk to persons. Its complicated. I only have time to toss a few examples here.

Water heater safety pan: minor risk of damage to property. No need to call it out if missing. I think not required by NACHI (not time to look up but NACHI does not address property damage risk, only risk to persons)
GFCI not to current code: Code not required by NACHI SoP
Arc Fault: Not required by NACHI SoP
Pools: Not required by NACHI SoP
Lawn irrigation back flow devices: No required by NACHI SoP
Faucet does not have anti scald protection. Unsafe for kids and elderly. Not required by NACHI SoP. Priority is less than imminent.
A stairway that meets code 100%. Proper installation and unsafe by its mere presence. Number 1 cause of in home injury. No safety comment required.
A 1990 overhead dor opener without a reverse sensing beam. Unsafe for kids. Priority possibly imminent depending on occupancy. presence not required by NACHI SoP.
Blind cords. Imminet risk if toddler present. Not required by SoP.
Presence of a toilet. #2 cause of in home drowning of toddlers (bathtub #1). Imminent risk depending on occupancy. Not required by SoP.

Here are some that are required

Disconnected Type B flue pipe. Improper installation and unsafe (priority is debateable
Charred hot wire in panel. Improper condition. Imminentlyunsafe depending on application. A reporting requirement of the SoP IF you took off the panel cover.
A smoking receptacle. Improper condition, imminent safety. Required by SoP.

I could write thousands of these.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by kswift

John, thanks for starting a dialogue. This is exactly what we need. As to the title of my book, there's no hidden meaning or deep wisdom. One word rhymed with the other, I needed a title, and I thought it sounded catchy, that's all.

I like the title.

Nifty Swifty
wrote a book
to keep inspectors off the hook

[Blaine Wiley]

We are inspecting, by our SOP for material defects. Safety as a word is not in the definition of a material defect, but the lawyer in me is smart enough to know that i can meld it there and convince a judge or jury that it is in two seconds.

" A Material defect is a condition with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the real property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property."

It doesn't say safety, but boy, does it say safety LOUD.

[Brian E. Kelly]

The SOP is the minimum standard. if you want/need more protection that is where your contract, scope, and inspection report disclaimers come in to play.

I do not check for radon, mold, poltergiests, electromgnetic fields, cheese, STD's, bladder infections, bla bla bla.....................

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bwiley

" A Material defect is a condition with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the real property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property." It doesn't say safety, but boy, does it say safety LOUD.

I agree in some respect. Its safety LOUD but your letting the attorney do the shouting. Your SoP whispers.

Actually this section of the SoP says two things that can hang a NACHI member easily.

1 - "that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the real property" can mean noise pollution, location, market forces, lifespan of equipment. Home inspection does not address "value". That is an appraisal function. A smoldering wire is a material defect that has very little impact on value. A railroad track the buyer did not know about can have significant impact on value and by NACHI defintion is a material defect".

2 - You do not define "defect" therefor leave it open to an attorney to define it for you. You do not define "unreasonable" and that opens you to any interpretation. You do not address safety clearly and the ambiguity opens you to interpretation. You do not address safety clearly so members will be inconsistent.

I think we all agree inspection is about property condition. I think we agree that property condition discoveries can be unsafe. We are not in agreement regarding safety that is code or improvement related. Usage is not addressed. Priority of repair is not addressed.

So I ask someone to define some words

Unreasonable
Defect
Material
Imminent risk to persons relative to any usage
Less than imminent risk to persons relative to any usage

Lets provide an example. The SoP say nothing about knob / tube. The scope says

"The fact that a structural element, system or subsystem is near, at or beyond the end of the normal useful life of such a structural element, system or subsystem is not by itself a material defect."

So, it is reasonable to state that knob and tube is not a material defect and does not pose risk to occupants therefore the inverse applies . . .knob and tube is safe?

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

The SOP is the minimum standard.

Yes

Originally Posted by bkelly2

If you want/need more protection that is where your contract, scope, and inspection report disclaimers come in to play.

Yes that too is correct and of course a good inspection and well written report help immensely.

The concept of "protection" is very valid but try selling it a different way. The SoP is what you will do / not do for a consumer. It an agreement of expected performance. It defines the requirement. It is vital the document be concise and loop hole free. That is possible however concise writting is difficult. I am NOT a concise writer. However my NACHI friend Mr. Strahan is. He can take this paragraph and cut it to half it size with better choice of words.

Instead of saying the SoP protect me say the SoP protect the consumer. And they do!

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Yes



Yes that too is correct and of course a good inspection and well written report help immensely.

The concept of "protection" is very valid but try selling it a different way. The SoP is what you will do / not do for a consumer. It an agreement of expected performance. It defines the requirement. It is vital the document be concise and loop hole free. That is possible however concise writting is difficult. I am NOT a concise writer. However my NACHI friend Mr. Strahan is. He can take this paragraph and cut it to half it size with better choice of words.

Instead of saying the SoP protect me say the SoP protect the consumer. And they do!

The SOP is a minimum set of guidelines, my contract, scope, disclaimers and contract, define in no uncertain terms what I do.

[John McKenna]

John,

You say that we should only go by the SoP... and omit some
safety issues.

Then you turn around and say the same SoP are vague and
can be used against us.

You have proven my point. This is why I enhance my protection
by pointing out various safety issues I see and educate the
client to take responsibility for their well being. Why? Because
just like you said... the SoP are vague in some respects... and
Lawyers can make a rabbit stand up and quack like a duck.
If the SoP are vague, then they can make it say anything, in order
to get the money they are seeking.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

You say that we should only go by the SoP... and omit some safety issues.

Then you turn around and say the same SoP are vague and
can be used against us.

1 - Yes, comply with the SoP and avoid exceeding them unless it is offered as an additional service the client is offered and either accepts or declines.

2 - I do not recommend omitting some safety issues. IF the SoP clearly require certain safety reporting then do it. Avoid however assuming increased reporting requirements that are implied. One might counter implied arguments with the optional product concept.

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

You have proven my point. This is why I enhance my protection by pointing out various safety issues I see and educate the client to take responsibility for their well being.

I presume your point is you enhance your protection by pointing out various safety issues. That is GREAT as long as you create an enhanced NACHI SoP for your business and tie that into the contract and scope of service (use revision numbers). You must also consider a protocol that assures compliance with your stated service (field notes or a check sheet for example).

An example is: We perform our inspection to NACHI SoP. We exceed NACHI SoP by inspecting for the presence of arc fault protectors.

Take the NACHI SoP and edit your additional services and clarify vague wording. Emphasize the variation with italic font and explain what is going on in the scope. Tie it all together in your contract and report preamble. NOW you are protecting yourself and adding value to your product for the consumer.

If you just insert undocumented "this and that" into your report then the attorney will add "them and those" for you.

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Why? Because just like you said... the SoP are vague in some respects...

The NACHI SoP are good but can be improved (no offense to anyone; any one of my reports is subject to improvement).

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

and Lawyers can make a rabbit stand up and quack like a duck.

I respect lawyers but I know some expert witnesses that can confound many lawyers. The word Lawyer is not synonomous with genius. Some are actually stupid when it comes to our business. Don't fear them; respect them and know they can often be beat at their own game. There are a lot of GOOD DECENT lawyers out there that can kick *** on a plantiff lawyer . . . . . for $300 an hour of course.

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

If the SoP are vague, then they can make it say anything, in order to get the money they are seeking.

And you can make them say what you want in your revised SoP, contract and report. It is a two way street.

I do not endorse a vague SoP. I endorse a clear concise SoP. That does not mean it has to be prescriptive.

Here is an example. NACHI says

I. The inspectors are not required to determine:

J. The presence of mold, mildew or fungus.
K. The presence of air-borne hazards.
N. The air quality.
O. The existence of asbestos.
P. The existence of environmental hazards.
Q. The existence of electro-magnetic fields.
R. The presence of hazardous materials including, but not limited to, the presence of lead in paint.
S. Any hazardous waste conditions.



The same can be simply stated:

The inspectors are not required to determine the presence, absence or risk of any environmental pathogen, carcinogen, toxin or poison.

You could expand with the NACHI list of exemplars:

Examples of excluded items include but are not limited to mold, mildew or fungus; air-borne hazards; air quality; asbestos; electro-magnetic fields; lead in paint; hazardous waste conditions.


Your contract could offer

We are licensed to inspect and test for mold by the TDH. We can provide this service for $xxx
Client accepts_________ Clients declines _________


We do not provide air quality studies. If interested you may research such experts by contact TDH at 555 - 1111.



We do not inspect for asbestos. If interested you may research such experts by contact TDH at 555 - 1111.

An optional 128 item limited safety inspection that compares the home to modern construction standards is available for $xxx. We recommend you consider this optional service. If you decline this option we will provide a check list that will help youdo some of it yourself at no charge. You may hire us later to perfrom this important optional inspection. Prior to closing is best.

Client accepts_________ Clients declines _________


And so on.




Well guys and gals. I think that's it for this thread for me. Thank you for the replies. Its just food for thought. You can control your destiny to some extent.

Three men fell into a river. One gave up and went with the current over the falls. Another swam but still went over the falls. The last swam also but made it to shore.

This industry needs to start swimming.


This is not legal advice. Its only an opinion subject to revision when I become sober. Think about it and make up your own mind. You are responsible for yourself.