Keith Swift and I are proposing a new Standards of Practice for the industry.

[Nick Gromicko]

Here is what we've been working on: http://www.nachi.org/newsop2007.htm

We welcome constructive criticism.

It has not been adopted as NACHI's SOP of course, it just an idea we've been playing with.

[James H. Bushart]

I find it to be flawed in its language and overly restrictive. It interferes with the inspector's duty to make certain business decisions that would or could affect his business relationships with his client and fails to take into consideration the variances in particular state laws.

Needs lots and lots of work. I will reserve my comments on the specifics until the ESOP Committee has a chance to meet on and review this. That way, all of the comments can be appropriately catalogued and conveyed on behalf of the entire committee by our chairman.

[Nick Gromicko]

I like it, but the biggest problem in making any substantial change to NACHI's SOP (which is the SOP used by more home inspectors than any other) is the E&O insurance underwriters.

The E&O insurance underwriters have given NACHI members exclusive deals and discounts, in part, due to our existing, time-tested SOP.

A new SOP, even if it was improved, would not likely enjoy instant approval.

[Bob Elliott]

Nick ..what are the main changes you were looking to insert.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

I see Keith all over this thing, but where's Nick?

[Nick Gromicko]

Jeff:

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

If we're looking for "constructive criticism," I'll start with the first thing that really caught my attention.

SECTION TEN: SLEEPING QUARTERS
The inspector is required to:

1. Confirm the adequacy of light and ventilation.

I think this would fall under "code compliance?"

[Nick Gromicko]

What I like the most about it is that each section starts with a consumer notice paragraph.

[Nick Gromicko]

The other smaller problem (compared to E&O approval) is that NACHI and NACHI members have been beatin' the hell out of every plaintiff in court, in part again, by pointing to our existing SOP. It might be a case of turbo charging a sports car from 600hp to 635hp.

[ekartal6]

Jeff,

All bedrooms should have at least one outlet and supply vent. If it didn't I still wouldn't call it out as a code issue. I don't get the code compliance thing to be honest.

I did not mention returns since of course they can be in the hallway if the bedroom doors are undercut 3/4".

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Jeff, I've got a feeling that light and ventilation is what we'd both comment on anyway, but perhaps not refer to its as code-compliance, but as common sense health and safety issues. What we're trying to do is to get inspectors to look for the same thing so that they can serve thier clients better or more responsibly and not get whacked by two New York attorneys. This is really all about establishing NACHI's authority in the industry and protecting inspectors. Nick and I have been going over this for months, and he did say when we posted it: "This is going to be fun."

[Joe Farsetta]

The product is flawed. The true premise of any SOP is that we observe and report our findings. That is the base premise. Period.

I have not had the opportunity to read this thing. I dont mind that Keith has tried to improve the doc. That's fine. I do not like the specific verbiage chosen for some of the clauses, and am wrestling with the idea of the need to re-write the doc at all.

If something isnt broken, I dont think we need to try and fix it. Most association SOPs are relatively close. They are that way for a reason. Further, our ability to obtain and maintain E&O insurance is governed by which SOP we use. Would we like it if AIG told its underwriters to dictate to its NACHI E&O customers that NACHI members must now use the ASHI SOP?

More to follow...

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by kswift

Jeff, I've got a feeling that light and ventilation is what we'd both comment on anyway, but perhaps not refer to its as code-compliance, but as common sense health and safety issues.

I agree with you, but when we are required to "confirm adequacey," I think of things like this. . .

Title 24 CBC 1203.1 General. For the purpose of determining the light or ventilation for Group R Occupancies required by this section, any room may be considered as a portion of an adjoining room when one half of the area of the common wall is open and unobstructed and provides an opening of not less than one tenth of the floor area of the interior room or 25 square feet (2.3 m2), whichever is greater.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

As for the SOP's affording anyone a victory in court, winning in court is meaningless. Tell me how much has been won. Would you rather recommend removing a water slide from a pool or be sued by a client who is now a quadripalegic as a consequence of a water-slide accident, as one California inspector was? And I could go on and on, but I for one will never endorse a diving board, a water slide, stacked concrete fountains, bird baths, or statuary. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, I think I am. I've been the hapless victim of an injust lawsuit and it's not pleasant. I always ask what if? Did anyone see my article on a pool in California that was "built to code?" It was several lawsuits waiting to happen. So bad as to be funny, and I present it at all my seminars, and no one can believe it, but it's true.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Jeff,
Thanks. I'd love to see you on the "committee." You're consistently rational, fair and balanced, and have a real estate agent for a wife. It just doesn't get any better than that.