Looking for some advice.

[David J. Moran]

[quote=wsiegel]The engineer who disigned those repairs needs to issue a letteer stating that they were repaired in accordance with the design plans. End of story.


This is exactly the fact of the matter. I have been involved in the new construction process for a very long time and have taught this as protocol to many a superintendent.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by rray

Hey, Ben.

I presume that FREA does not cover a re-inspection. Would they cover an inspection of repairs in an ordinary inspection that were done by the seller a day prior to the inspection? Why or why not? Would it not be the same? The seller would disclose the repairs and present receipts to my Client, just like they would do at a re-inspection.

A home inspection is not the validation of repairs made my another entity. And remember that you must have a signed PIA in order for your insurance to cover you.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

A home inspection is not the validation of repairs made my another entity.

Understand. But along the same lines, it's not the validation of how something was built to begin with, either, such as a brand new, never-been-lived-in home that we all inspect as a matter of course in our businesses.

Why would it be valid to inspect such a brand new home when we didn't see it being built, but not valid to inspect a repair that we didn't see done either? They both are visual inspections, are they not?

Originally Posted by bgarrison

And remember that you must have a signed PIA in order for your insurance to cover you.

Mine also has to be a fee-paid inspection, not just a signed PIA.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by rray

Understand. But along the same lines, it's not the validation of how something was built to begin with, either, such as a brand new, never-been-lived-in home that we all inspect as a matter of course in our businesses.

Why would it be valid to inspect such a brand new home when we didn't see it being built, but not valid to inspect a repair that we didn't see done either? They both are visual inspections, are they not?

Mine also has to be a fee-paid inspection, not just a signed PIA.

You actually raise a good point here. And this is what I can tell you. When you're doing a home inspection and report that there are problems with certain areas of the home, that is the extent of your job. For example, if you see that the roof is damaged, you report that and suggest that the buyer has a roofer come out and take it from there. After whatever repairs are made, it should be out of your hands.

Let's say you make the recommendation to have a roofer come out and further examine whatever the issues might be. And you go back and do a re-inspection on the house. It's a clear sunny day and there's no way for you to tell that the roof still has a leak after repair. You put your stamp of approval on it, and the next rainy day the homeowner is taking a shower in his/her living room. You're opening up yourself to liability there. Which is why the insurance company does not want you doing this work.

Like I said, you raise a good point and I want to look into this further. Did my example make sense??? There are different ways to look at this situation.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by bgarrison

You actually raise a good point here. And this is what I can tell you. When you're doing a home inspection and report that there are problems with certain areas of the home, that is the extent of your job.

And I think that's why the home inspection industry doesn't exactly have a glowing reputation. We fail our Clients when we dont' take care of all their home inspection needs.

Originally Posted by bgarrison

For example, if you see that the roof is damaged, you report that and suggest that the buyer has a roofer come out and take it from there. After whatever repairs are made, it should be out of your hands.

If I could be assured that all repairs are always done by qualified and/or licensed professionals who do a good job, I would agree with you. However, the mere fact that we inspect brand new, never-been-lived-in homes surely indicates that qualified and/or licensed professionals don't always do what they are supposed to do. Same thing with a re-inspection.

Originally Posted by bgarrison

Let's say you make the recommendation to have a roofer come out and further examine whatever the issues might be. And you go back and do a re-inspection on the house. It's a clear sunny day and there's no way for you to tell that the roof still has a leak after repair. You put your stamp of approval on it, and the next rainy day the homeowner is taking a shower in his/her living room. You're opening up yourself to liability there.

I can't agree with that. First and foremost, let's say it's a clear sunny day when we do the original inspection. Couldn't tell that there was a leak at that time yet we put in our report the various disclaiming language about not being able to determine whether the roof leaks in dry weather and then note that we didn't see any problems. Why not the same for a re-inspection on the roof? Same disclaiming language for the clear, sunny day and the statement that we didn't see any problems. Nothing I do can take liability away from the person who actually made the repairs if s/he is a licensed professional and provides receipts.

Second, I never put my stamp of approval on anything, and I don't know any other home inspector who does, either. Perhaps you simply chose poor words there.

Third, if I put my stamp of approval on the roof in the original inspection, and the roof then leaked, would my E&O insurance cover me? I think it would, or should, at least. Then why would it not cover me for the exact same thing except on a re-inspection?

Let's look at those repairs another way. I did the original inspection and recommended roof repairs. The seller and buyer couldn't come to an agreement about paying for the repairs so the buyer pulled out. The seller then had the repairs done four days after the inspection. Then the seller gets another purchase offer, gives a copy of my original report to the new buyer through disclosure (Leko), and the new buyer proceeds to hire me for his home inspection six days after the original inspection since he's well aware of the fact that I'm already familiar with the property and can inspect the seller's repairs. Am I covered for E&O for that second inspection on the same property but with repairs having been done? Seems like I am. So what's the difference between inspecting a re-inspection for one Client and inspecting the exact same thing except for a new Client?

I actually think your insurance company does home inspectors and their Clients a disservice and actually opens your company to more lawsuits by forbidding your Clients from helping those buyers.

[Ben L. Garrison]

I'm not saying I have all the answers here as this is something that I need to dig deeper into. Stamp of approval, maybe a poor choice of words in the most literal sense, I said that more as a figure of speech.

Please note that FREA is not the insurance company, we are simply the provider. The policy is underwritten by a carrier who has many other subsidiary companies who write similar policies. In other words, FREA doesn't make the rules, we play by them. So it's not OUR insurance company necessarily, it's all of them. Bob Pearson with Allen will more than likely tell you the same thing regarding re-inspections.

We make every attempt to provide the inspectors with the best coverage available through FREA. But there is only so much we can do as we're not the insurance company.

[wsiegel]

Russell,

Without getting into a long drawn out arguement, lets just say that we agree to disagree. My statement about reinspections is based on other insepctors I know in this area who have had to pay for repairs after they went out and OKed a repair on a reinspection.

On new construction, you can watch someting go up. On a repair, you have no idea what is behind the wall or under the shingles. IMHO all you can do, if you choose to do so, is verify that a repair was done, and say whether or not it looks like it was done in a workman like manner. To say it was done correctly when you were not there to see the repair done is only going to cost you money when they want to sue you.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

My statement about reinspections is based on other insepctors I know in this area who have had to pay for repairs after they went out and OKed a repair on a reinspection.

They obviously failed in their disclaimers. There should have been no difference in their disclaiming language between the original inspection and the re-inspectoin. The obviously did not manage their Clients' expectations, and that will get one into trouble on any inspection.

Originally Posted by wsiegel

On new construction, you can watch someting go up.

We're not talking phase or draw inspections. The house is completed but no one has lived in it. In fact, it's been finished for a month and no one has lived in it. Now you're to do an inspection on it. You have no idea whether anything was done correctly underneat the skin, underneath the visual inspection. All you can do "is verify that [the house has been built], and say whether or not it looks like it was [built] in a workman like manner." Exactly.

Originally Posted by wsiegel

On a repair, you have no idea what is behind the wall or under the shingles.

You have no idea what is behind the wall or under the shingles at any inspection, do you?

Originally Posted by wsiegel

IMHO all you can do, if you choose to do so, is verify that a repair was done, and say whether or not it looks like it was done in a workman like manner. To say it was done correctly when you were not there to see the repair done is only going to cost you money when they want to sue you.

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to say but for some reason failing to say it properly. And when you say that, make sure you charge again for your opinion, and make sure you use the same disclaimers. My re-inspections have the exact same disclaiming language that the original inspections used. It's just that different things were inspected the second time around (just the repairs).

Yes, we can agree to disagree. I'm just failing to understand why more people don't do re-inspections and why insurance companies wouldn't cover them. Seems to me that if one recommended a roof repair, and the seller hired an idiot to do the repairs, and no one told the buyer that the repairs were not done right, or were not done in a workmanlike manner, or, perhaps, not even done at all, then, trust me, the lawsuit is going to involve everyone: seller, seller's agent, buyer's agent, roofing repair person, and the home inspector. Why would the home inspector not try to be proactive in re-inspecting the repair and telling his Client that even though the seller said the repair work had been done, it sure looks the same as it did when I was out here a week ago. Of course, I'll have to compare my old photos with the new photos to be sure, but meanwhile you might get those receipts from the seller and find out who did the repairs.

I never like to leave my Clients hanging, and not doing re-inspections sure leaves them hanging.

[Todd Stromdahl]

If i decide to go out and perform a re-inspection of the repair made to what ever the original defect may have been, Roof, sidding, AC, or Framing is their a seperate agreement that inspectors use, or is this covered under the original inspection agreement. At this point I do not have a clause in my agreement for re-inspections, do I need to add one? Does anyone have a re-inspect agreement that they wouldn't mind shareing with the group.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Originally Posted by tstromdahl

If i decide to go out and perform a re-inspection of the repair made to what ever the original defect may have been, Roof, sidding, AC, or Framing is their a seperate agreement that inspectors use, or is this covered under the original inspection agreement. At this point I do not have a clause in my agreement for re-inspections, do I need to add one? Does anyone have a re-inspect agreement that they wouldn't mind shareing with the group.

Ask your lawyer to draft up the appropriate language for a clause in your contract extending to the re-inspection. And if you get sued still, file against your attorney's E&O insurance