New service for members who discover foundation issues.

[whandley]

Originally Posted by vsantos

I've noticed anytime Nick posts a new "benefit" it's torn apart by people. I'm not at all saying anyone should buy into everything they hear but there's a right way and a wrong way to question things. Seems like things are struck down with worse case assumptions.

In this business you plan for the worst case scenario. If you're in business long enough and do enough inspections, bad news will make its way to your door.

One thing most long term, successfull inspectors have in common, the ability to keep themselves out of trouble. You don't accomplish that task by involving yourself in unethical, questionable and or fly by night business practices and or partnership arrangements.

Proceed at your own risk!

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by vsantos

I've noticed anytime Nick posts a new "benefit" it's torn apart by people. I'm not at all saying anyone should buy into everything they hear but there's a right way and a wrong way to question things. Seems like things are struck down with worse case assumptions.

This is not a new software product or miracle ladder.

This is about referring your client to a structural engineer, live, site unseen, to give professional advise based on the findings of your inspection.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by vsantos

I've noticed anytime Nick posts a new "benefit" it's torn apart by people. I'm not at all saying anyone should buy into everything they hear but there's a right way and a wrong way to question things. Seems like things are struck down with worse case assumptions.

It is logical why you would question my motives and to think that my criticism of this "benefit" has to do with some other agenda....but when you look at it at its face value, it will become more clear to you why everything that Nick calls a "benefit" is not necessarily so.

Keep in mind that your dues are already spent. These "benefits" are designed to attract people like me...and others who are not members...to want to join in order to take advantage of them. Many of those on the outside of NACHI are new inspectors or people considering the possibility of becoming one and do not really know what questions to ask.

Nick published on another thread that the average NACHI member only takes advantage of 3% of his "benefits". A quick run through the list shows why....but again....you are in business, already, and can more easily discern what a "benefit" really is, which is why the average member rejects (according to Nick) 97% of them. (Of course, there is no real way of measuring who uses what and these figures were just made up by Nick, but I'll bet they are very close to being right).

So...in this thread that was written to be read by the general public...we have an announcement of a "benefit" that, if actually utilized, could possibly end one's inspection business.....but result in new enrollments, which is what it was designed to do.

[jvogan]

How would "they", whomever they are, be able to have a SU anywhere in the country. Didn't know they had a network like that anywhere, but maybe they do...I really don't know.

[jvogan]

Nick writes:
InterNACHI has partnered with a network of structural and professional engineers across the U.S. and Canada.

My question is,who are "they"....please tell us....

[Nick Gromicko]

Most liability in the structural portion of a home inspection comes when a home inspector fails to understand the seriousness of cracks (for example) and so fails to explain them to an extent that the client takes them seriously.

It would be difficult for a client to later claim that the inspector failed to fulfill this duty, when there exists a record that the inspector himself/herself arranged for the client to talk to an expert during the inspection and that the expert offered to visit the property and look at situation.

It sounds to me (and probably to a judge) that the inspector found a potential problem and made it clear to the client that they should seek expert advice... as evidenced by the client actually getting expert advice within minutes of discovery.

This is one area where you not only want to relay the potential seriousness of a foundation failure to your client... but more importantly, be able to prove that you did.

[Nick Gromicko]

There are 3 possible scenerios:

1. It turns out your suspicions were wrong, the expert looks at it, and tells the cleint that there is nothing to worry about. Great! You did your job.

2. It turns out your suspicions were right, and the client walks on the deal. Great! There is no liability in an inspection on a home your client didn't buy.

3. It turns out your suspicions were right, and the expert confirms to the client that there is a problem, and the client buys the home anyway. Great! You've done all you can do to warn the client and now you have proof that you did.

[Billy Boerner]

If I can have a structural engineer on my staff to answer questions for people even while Im on site "AND IT"S FREE" I don't care who it is sign me up.

[Nick Gromicko]

If I can have a structural engineer on my staff to answer questions for people even while Im on site "AND IT"S FREE" I don't care who it is sign me up.

And the great part about it is the engineer ISN'T on your staff, but a third party that documents for you, the fact that you found a structural issue that you took seriously enough to ask your client to talk to an expert about it right then and there.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And the great part about it is the engineer ISN'T on your staff, but a third party that documents for you, the fact that you found a structural issue that you took seriously enough to ask your client to talk to an expert about it right then and there.

SPIN!!! SPIN!!!! SPIN!!!!!

The Doctor is "IN"

[Nick Gromicko]

Brian, your legal argument for why this doesn't drastically reduce inspector liability leaves much to be desired... but hey... at least it rhymes.

[James H. Bushart]

Still waiting for an expert to weigh in on this.

In the interim....who are these "experts" and how are they paid for their services?

[John McKenna]

If you recommend the specialist and...

he says nothing is wrong... and he is incorrect... (not good).
he says something is wrong... and is part of the repair... and it goes bad later (not good).

If a Realtor recommends an inspector he can get sued if things go bad.
If an Inspector recommends a specialist he can get sued if things go bad.

The idea does have some pros, but it has some cons also. IMHO.
I do not recommend anyone by name, but tell the client how to find a specialist and
what to look out for. In Texas we cannot recommend anyone that makes money
on the repairs, because it can be considered a conflict of interest.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

In Texas we cannot recommend anyone that makes money on the repairs, because it can be considered a conflict of interest.

Say what? I recommend folks all the time that make money on engineering reports, repairs, etc. I don't get anything for the referral however.

[Nick Gromicko]

Yes, that is correct. I don't think it easy for a negligent referral suit to stick when you are not paid to refer and not getting paid by anyone to research the referral, like an agent does... but let's take your worst case scenario. Let's say that you find a problem that you think is serious enough for your client to talk to an expert about. The expert even comes over to the home and looks at the situation. By this time you have already fulfilled your duties as a home inspector. After looking at the situation the expert tells your client that the home is fine. The home then collapses. The question is then, is your argument that you fulfilled your duty to alert your client to the problem enhanced or diminished by referring your client to an expert that gave bad advice? I still say that it is enhanced.

But let's make it even worse. Let's say that in a situation such as I just described, your liability is not decreased but rather increased on the claim of negligent referral.

The question then becomes, is your overall liability as an inspector increased or decreased? To determine the answer we should ask, is the event I just described more likely to occur than one of the following 3, or less likely to occur than one of the following 3 ?:

1. It turns out your suspicions were wrong, the expert looks at it, and tells the client that there is nothing to worry about. Great! You did your job.

2. It turns out your suspicions were right, and the client walks on the deal. Great! There is no liability in an inspection on a home your client didn't buy.

3. It turns out your suspicions were right, and the expert confirms to the client that there is a problem, and the client buys the home anyway. Great! You've done all you can do to warn the client and now you have proof that you did.

In other words, if you overall liability is increased by an unlikely event occurring but also decreased by likely events occuring, then the difference in risk (avoided) minus risk (assumed)... is precisely your overall decrease in liability... which is what really matters.