Charge separately for Thermal Imaging?

[William J. Decker]

Since my camera was stolen, I have had to refuse to do about $4,000 worth of inspections (inspections of a type where I really needed the camera. Water intrusion, flood damage assessment, etc. No plain old home inspections) and have been VERY careful about doing regular home inspections.

I have found myself checking each and every window frame (below the sill) with my water meter and spending a lot more time looking at crawlspaces, attics and basement walls.

BTW: My first point is an important one to those who don't believe that they can get enough work to justify the camera cost. In a little over 2 weeks, I had to turn away enough business to almost pay for the camera itself.

[Peter C. Russell]

What if you offer pest or radon inspections and the client declines only later to find out there is a considerable problem, same scenario just different types of inspection.

[Michael Larson]

Hey big guy(Will) I think I will disagree with you on this one to promote discussion of thermal imaging fees.

I'll raise a few points here and encourage other to chime in with more.

-Since the use of a Imaging camera is well outside the scope of the NACHI and various state SOPs, why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary service with additional charges to the client above the "normal" home inspection pricing?

-If you offer the thermal imaging service to the client and they specifically decline via your PIA, why would you see any increased liability? (Much like offering mold sampling services)

-If thermal imaging becomes part of a standard home inspection all I see is increased overhead to the inspector and only the possibility of raising fees. Comments?

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Hey big guy(Will) I think I will disagree with you on this one to promote discussion of thermal imaging fees.

I'll raise a few points here and encourage other to chime in with more.

-Since the use of a Imaging camera is well outside the scope of the NACHI and various state SOPs, why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary service with additional charges to the client above the "normal" home inspection pricing?

Just because some new technique is out of the scope of some private association or state SOPs does not mean it is not part of a home inspection. Remember, SOPs, like local codes are the bare minimum requirements.

-If you offer the thermal imaging service to the client and they specifically decline via your PIA, why would you see any increased liability? (Much like offering mold sampling services).

As previously shown, adherence to an SOP or having a written contract does not provide complete protection from liability. You can fully fulfill the terms of a contract and still be sued. You are not being sued for not fulfilling a contract, but for negligence. Remember, fiduciary responsibility (which all licesned inspectors have) goes way beyond the duties written in a contract. The best protection from liability is to do the bes job possible. There are many stories on this board of HIs being sued for thinsg that were not "visable" at the time of the inspection, but that would heve been seen by using thermal imaging. These guys are being sued even if they don't have the cameras.

-If thermal imaging becomes part of a standard home inspection all I see is increased overhead to the inspector and only the possibility of raising fees.

That remains to be seen. Time will tell.

Comments?

Hope this helps;

[Michael Larson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlarson
Hey big guy(Will) I think I will disagree with you on this one to promote discussion of thermal imaging fees.

I'll raise a few points here and encourage other to chime in with more.

-Since the use of a Imaging camera is well outside the scope of the NACHI and various state SOPs, why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary service with additional charges to the client above the "normal" home inspection pricing?

Just because some new technique is out of the scope of some private association or state SOPs does not mean it is not part of a home inspection. Remember, SOPs, like local codes are the bare minimum requirements.

Well that may be a problem because now the individual inspector decides what is included in a home inspection.
-Why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary servivce?


-If you offer the thermal imaging service to the client and they specifically decline via your PIA, why would you see any increased liability? (Much like offering mold sampling services).

As previously shown, adherence to an SOP or having a written contract does not provide complete protection from liability. You can fully fulfill the terms of a contract and still be sued. You are not being sued for not fulfilling a contract, but for negligence. Remember, fiduciary responsibility (which all licesned inspectors have) goes way beyond the duties written in a contract. The best protection from liability is to do the bes job possible. There are many stories on this board of HIs being sued for thinsg that were not "visable" at the time of the inspection, but that would heve been seen by using thermal imaging. These guys are being sued even if they don't have the cameras.

That goes without saying IMHO. Anyone can be sued for anything. Please explain how it's negligence to not use a thermal imaging camer on an inspection. With that line of thinking you would need to start including many more invasive procedures to avoid the negligance claim if you failed to find a laten defect.
The PIA should determine the scope of the inspection. Nothing more Nothing less.
-I haven't seen how E&O providers look at thermal imaging or other ancillary services one provides. Have you?

-If thermal imaging becomes part of a standard home inspection all I see is increased overhead to the inspector and only the possibility of raising fees.

That remains to be seen. Time will tell.

Looks like it already has in some cases.

[William J. Decker]

Well that may be a problem because now the individual inspector decides what is included in a home inspection.
-Why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary servivce?

I hate yellow. I have a hard enough time reading black and blue.

If one with a fiduciary reponsibility to a client has the means to better protect the client (as thermal imaging does), they have an implied duty to do so.

If you went to a lawyer and he had one price for doing a good job and another for doing a great job, which would you pay. Would you even hire him?

If you went to a Doctor and he said he will examine you for one price, but you have to pay more for blood tests, whould you trust him.

Doctors and lawyers present their services as best practice, every time, and give no 'discount' for doing a less than professional job.

Thaty's just what you are doing, offerung a discount to your clients for doing a less than 'best work' job.

Mold and Radon testing are something else, with Radon being sub-contracted by me for just this reason.

If I see signs of mold, I will recommend the testing and have them sign off whatever they decide. Mold testing is just to verify and find the type of mold, not to determine if mold exists.

Counterpoint?

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by wdecker

If you went to a Doctor and he said he will examine you for one price, but you have to pay more for blood tests, whould you trust him.

Well, he does charge extra for blood tests and sometimes he determines that I don't need blood tests but the main thing to remember with doctors is that the are just "practicing".

[Peter C. Russell]

Will,
my point is this, I offer water, radon water and radon air. Many times the client will decline these services, so my point is if I do a home inspection and don't do any other testing because the client declined would I then be liable if they found out that the well was contaminated and there was high levels of radon in the house.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Well that may be a problem because now the individual inspector decides what is included in a home inspection.
-Why shouldn't this be considered an ancillary servivce?

I hate yellow. I have a hard enough time reading black and blue.

It's Orange on my screen and was meant to honor you Will.

Originally Posted by wdecker

If one with a fiduciary reponsibility to a client has the means to better protect the client (as thermal imaging does), they have an implied duty to do so.

Does that also mean you take off vinyl siding with a zip tool to inspect if the flashings are done properly? Do you do a pressure door test to check for air leaks too? CO? HVAC adequacy? The list could go on so where is th HI to draw the line?

Originally Posted by wdecker

If you went to a lawyer and he had one price for doing a good job and another for doing a great job, which would you pay. Would you even hire him?

It's a poor analogy in my opinion.

Originally Posted by wdecker

If you went to a Doctor and he said he will examine you for one price, but you have to pay more for blood tests, whould you trust him.

Another poor analogy. More often than not, the Doctor is providing more services by way of diagnostic tests than I probably need.

Originally Posted by wdecker

Doctors and lawyers present their services as best practice, every time, and give no 'discount' for doing a less than professional job.

See above.

Originally Posted by wdecker

Thaty's just what you are doing, offerung a discount to your clients for doing a less than 'best work' job.

I don't provide thermal imaging services yet. I have been considering it for over 2 years now.

Originally Posted by wdecker

Mold and Radon testing are something else, with Radon being sub-contracted by me for just this reason.

I don't see the difference. If you have a Radon monitor why would you fail to use it in the interest of your fiduciary responsibility? Same for mold sampling.

Originally Posted by wdecker

If I see signs of mold, I will recommend the testing and have them sign off whatever they decide. Mold testing is just to verify and find the type of mold, not to determine if mold exists.

Could the HI not also do the same with thermal imaging?

Note: I am not questioning the value of thermal imaging, mold testing or Radon testing. They are all value added services the HI can choose to provide IMHO.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

I have obtained legal advise on this subject and was strongly encouraged to offer ITI services as a seperate and distinct service just like Radon, Termite, Mold, etc.

The main point being that you do NOT go out and offer ITI as a service without an inspection agreement or contract. I have a description of services and a full pre-inspection agreement for every ITI service I offer.

ITI goes beyond the SOP and should be offered seperate and under a seperate agreement, period!

As far as price goes, well.....of couse I'm going to charge more. Don't you charge extra for Radon or Mold testing?

Kevin

[James E. Braun, CMI]

I agree. If thermal imagining is kept as an additional service at an additional price then there is no way you can be sued because your client was too cheap to order the additional service. Thermal imagining should be handled like any other additional inspection like, termite, sewer, well, and mold. When you make it a part of the home inspection you are exceeding your NACHI SOPs, which increases your liability.

[John McKenna]

When people ask me if I can do an inspection without thermal imaging, I always ask
them if it is OK if I do not report on any hidden moisture problems in the house?

They always say NO.

What will they do later when they discover the hidden moisture that has created
mold, decay and drawn in the termites.?

Will people be understanding and kind, or will they perhaps become angry
and sue me, regardless of all my disclaimers?

I live in the real world, not some false hope that the SoP are going to
protect me. I am going to try and find all the defects I can before
I even give someone a chance to get angry and sue me.

The best defense is an aggressive offence.

Some inspectors have been found guilty for defects, because they had
the tools in their bag to find the problem, but would not pull them out
because they wanted more money. It can really make you look bad
in the hands of a clever attorney.

Once your eyes are open to all the things you see with an IR camera,
it is very hard to walk away from an inspection without using it. It
makes you feel blind.

When I come behind inspectors who did not use thermal imaging to
confirm the problems they could not see... it is now their problem to
explain why they could not see it and I could. I would not like to be
in their shoes. They don't look very happy.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Is following the NACHI SOPs a big liability?

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

When people ask me if I can do an inspection without thermal imaging, I always ask
them if it is OK if I do not report on any hidden moisture problems in the house?

They always say NO.

What will they do later when they discover the hidden moisture that has created
mold, decay and drawn in the termites.?

Will people be understanding and kind, or will they perhaps become angry
and sue me, regardless of all my disclaimers?

I live in the real world, not some false hope that the SoP are going to
protect me. I am going to try and find all the defects I can before
I even give someone a chance to get angry and sue me.

The best defense is an aggressive offence.

Some inspectors have been found guilty for defects, because they had
the tools in their bag to find the problem, but would not pull them out
because they wanted more money. It can really make you look bad
in the hands of a clever attorney.

Once your eyes are open to all the things you see with an IR camera,
it is very hard to walk away from an inspection without using it. It
makes you feel blind.

When I come behind inspectors who did not use thermal imaging to
confirm the problems they could not see... it is now their problem to
explain why they could not see it and I could. I would not like to be
in their shoes. They don't look very happy.

Present your arguments to a competent Real Estate Attorney and see what they say. If they advise you to use the tool as "just another tool in the tool bag", then good for you. Good luck

This whole tread is comprised of "opinions" of inspectors. I've already obtained legal counsel on this subject, so I sleep well at night.

Kevin

[William J. Decker]

My inspection agreement states that I will do the inspection to the State SOP, and the (more stringent) NACHI SOP. If I do that, I have fulfilled the agreement and cannot be sued (at least not for not meeting that standard).

BUT, the inspection I do very much exceeds that standard.

- I check for gas leaks
- I use a CO detector on the furnace, water heater and other gas fired appliances
- If I can't get on the roof, I use binoculars
- I check the operation of the microwave (with my handy little NACHI microwave tester).
- I use a moisture meter to check for moisture behind bathroom tile, around the base of the toilet and in other places where I suspect moisture
- I take pictures of defects and include them in my report
- I check not only for polarity and grounding, but also voltage drop, conductor impeadence and the other things that a SureTest tests for.
- I use UV light to check for rodent trails and to check for active mold.

All these things exceed the SOP. Do I increase my 'liability' by doing this. No. In fact, I believe that most inspectors will agree that if you don't do at least some of these, you are in for a world of hurt.

IR is just one more tool. Sure, it is an expensive tool and requires extensive training to use properly, but it is just a tool.

If a tool helps me do a better job for my clients AND better covers my sorry butt, I cannot see any problem.

Why would a client sue you for doing a better job?

My lawyer agrees with this. Maybe it is a difference in state laws, but there is no increased liability in using IR.

Rebut?