Home Inspection IS NOT ABOUT SAFETY

[John McKenna]

Thank you John, it's always a pleasure to banter with you.

[gkoehl]

Industry uniformity is a significant key to controlling liability.

It is my opinion that where our industry needs uniformity, where we must work the hardest to redefine our industry (establishing in our SOP and educate the public) is that home inspectors are not an insurance policy against personal injury or loss nor can we insure that a property is safe and they (client and/or property) will never incur loss, injury, or damage (to do so would be impossible, even with intrusive testing and total deconstruction of a system or property, because everything eventually atrophies), but educators or consultants.

Distancing ourselves from the "trades" industries and establishing ourselves with the "service" industries would aid us in this redefinition.

Trades, by nature do or perform –bringing about, fixing, building, and/or repairing to current standards. And as home inspectors, we do not (and cannot) act in such a role. The service we provide is one of information: the condition of the property at the time of the inspection; items and issues which need immediate attention; items and issues which need further evaluation; conditions that the homeowner need be aware of that could contribute negatively to life, limb, or property; common maintenance requirements or recommendations; elements, products or practices which have been proven to be problematic; etc.

As of now, Home Inspections is considered a “blue collar” or “trade” profession, and to all of us with deep blue collar roots- we see this as a complement. But if the industry is to grow, mature, and stabilize (again, just my opinion) it will need to adopt a “white collar” or “service” status.

[James H. Bushart]

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.

Joe,

Do you have case law I can research where this has been applied, successfully?

[Kenneth Lott]

How about Verify. As in the inspector is not required to verify the use of of safety glass thru out the structure,or is not required to verify compliance of when performing a standard home inspection. A safety inspection can be performed for the client if requested for in writing for a seperate fee at the time of the inspection or...?

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by klott

How about Verify. As in the inspector is not required to verify the use of of safety glass thru out the structure,or is not required to verify compliance of when performing a standard home inspection.

Good point. IMO a SoP should avoid the use of the word verify unless it is contained in general exclusion and limitations. The definition is very binding. "to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of".

Originally Posted by klott

A safety inspection can be performed for the client if requested in writing for a seperate fee at the time of the inspection or...?

YES and you know what? Optional services or service recommendations are a great consumer service . . . . and they reduce your risk. . . . . and you can make more money.

As I said, if you want to inspect for safety beyond the SoP then copy the NACHI SoP to a Word document and modify it with your specific company policies. Tie that into your report and contract. I am not saying "don't go beyond". I am saying "don't go beyond unless you carefully document how far you go."

Example. Carbon monoxide testing. The inspector hears a war story about a death and law suit. He goes out and buys a tester and starts doing the service for free. He is "protecting" his client. That's good . . . . but he is exceeding the SoP and doing it at his expense.

Another inspector hears the same story. He buys the same tester. He offers the added service for $xx dollars. Client accepts or declines in contract. If client declines the report says. "We offere an option carbon monoxide inspection. This is an improtant safety inspection that you have chosen to to do at this time. We recommend you install carbon monoxide detectors regardless. You may hire us to return to perfrom this test if you change your mind."

Blah blah blah. It can be shortened but you get the drift. AND if the gas appliance is old always recommend it be serviced.

This scenario can be applied to every specialty tool used.

Protect the consumer; protect yourself; get paid for what you do.

About carbon monoxide testing: I do not do it. I have not researched the calibration requirements. IF you ever get a complaint the lawyer will want to see your maintenance schedule and calibration records.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Joe,

Do you have case law I can research where this has been applied, successfully?

No, not exactly, but it happened here in Florida and Jeff Hooper was probably involved in the case, my guess was it happened in Palm Beach County, that should narrow down the search.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

No, not exactly, but it happened here in Florida and Jeff Hooper was probably involved in the case, my guess was it happened in Palm Beach County, that should narrow down the search.

Leave it to Hoopy.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

I started out life protecting my client. About 10 years into home inspecting when lawsuits became more plentiful, I thought long and hard and decided that my NUMBER 1 PRIORITY was ME!!!!!!!

My inspection is designed to #1 protect me, my assets and my future.

Having said that I've discovered that protecting ME - gives my clients more protection than they had before.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Having said that I've discovered that protecting ME - gives my clients more protection than they had before.

Well said. Thank you.

[John McKenna]

Would it be better to mention some safey advise that could
protect a person?

Or would it be better to not say anything, and when I get sued,
when a child dies from some condition I could have mentioned...
I should trust that the lawyers will only see my side of the SoP?
... and be understanding and merciful to me, instead of the greaving
Mother?

Should I trust that the jury will ignore the emotional pull of the
weeping mother and rule in my favor?

Please remember that our laws are being tweaked by new rulings all
the time and how we see a law today may be wrong in a year
from now.

Why would a little safety advise in my report for others, hurt me?

I am not living in the world of fantasy and how the perfect
SoP could save the world... I am living in the jungle today and
need to survive. What works best to survive?