A Mission to Change the Standards - Let's Debate

[Nick Gromicko]

Let me ask 2 questions:

Who would you rather be, an inspector who inspects something that isn't required by SOP or an inspector who fails to inspect something that is required by SOP. I'm assuming your answer is "the former."

Now given that, does requiring more via the SOP increase or decrease overall liability for our membership in aggregate?

[Carl Pennick]

I would rather be inspecting the item no matter what the SOP says. However do you not feel that the SOP shold make the inspector check an important item like the AFCI.

[Dale Duffy]

You know guys, I have NEVER heard of a single inspector being sued in Arizona that I know, my other inspector friends know, and friends of my other inspectors friends know...zero, zip, zilch, none.

And looking at the Arizona Board of Technical Registration website in the discipline section, regarding who got their hand spanked, its only a handful since licensing has been enacted here.

Simply do a great job, inspect everything as good as you possibly can and nobody has to loose any sleep over any SOP's.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Now given that, does requiring more via the SOP increase or decrease overall liability for our membership in aggregate?

Nick, I think that is a great question and deserves its own thread or even a 10 day poll so that it shows up repeatedly. I'd love to know what the membership thinks on that subject.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Nick, I think that is a great question and deserves its own thread or even a 10 day poll so that it shows up repeatedly. I'd love to know what the membership thinks on that subject.

You are joking, right, Mike?

[Brian E. Kelly]

I do not trip AFCI breakers in occupied homes myself.

[Carl Pennick]

Quote from Nick

"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"


Nick what has changed in 6 months. Then you was all up for a change and proud to post that you had been working on a new SOP with Dr Keith Swift.

[Nick Gromicko]

Carl, nothing has changed. Read my quote you posted. Our SOP is the ONLY SOP in the inspection industry that enjoys E&O insurance discounts.

It's pretty difficult (and stupid) to make major changes to the industry's one SOP that enjoys E&O discounts (from the folks who have to bet on us with their own money) and the one SOP that has never been thrown out of court or deemed unconscionable, and the one SOP used by more inspectors in the world than any other.

As humans, we should all be working to improve everything, but let's start with the Edsels and Yugos first before we start re-designing the Bugattis and Lamborghinis.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jbushart

You are joking, right, Mike?

Not really, but trying to get an intelligent conversation and exchange of ideas here would be fruitless, so in that sense...yes, I'm joking.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Not really, but trying to get an intelligent conversation and exchange of ideas here would be fruitless, so in that sense...yes, I'm joking.

The question was simple...

If I have an SOP that requires you to do 100 things....and change it to require you to do 200 things....have I increased or decreased the number of things you are liable for?

Your desire to start a thread and get into deep discussion on that was humorous to me. I honestly thought you were kidding, but I wanted to make sure.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

If I have an SOP that requires you to do 100 things....and change it to require you to do 200 things....have I increased or decreased the number of things you are liable for?

Hi James, there is another way to look at this issue: You have a client who has employed you with the expectation that you will inspect 200 items, however your SOP states that you only inspect 100 of them, one of the 100 you'd didn't inspect (because your SOP says you don't have to) fails and the client is pissed. Client calls you to complain about your omission, you point out that it falls outside of the SOP, clients next call is to his lawyer. QED

Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

Hi James, there is another way to look at this issue: You have a client who has employed you with the expectation that you will inspect 200 items

Hi, Gerry.

How can this happen?

I am a member of NACHI and I advertise that, as well as the fact that the NACHI SOP defines the scope of my inspection. I refer to the NACHI SOP in my pre-inspection agreement and I provide a copy of it, alongside of my findings, with each report.

There is no logical reason for any of my clients to have any "expectation" of anything else.

I go as far as, at the time I book the appointment, to insist that my client go to my site and read the SOP I have posted there and call me back with any modifications that he might wish to make.

There is absolutely no room for doubt, by the time the inspection takes place, what the "expectations" are.

Now....if I were to advertise somewhere that "I exceed NACHI standards", I could see what you described happening. A confused client who is unsure of exactly what, of all of these items, I actually "exceed".

Thus, he may be expecting every single outlet checked and every single window operated. My not knowing this could certainly result in an issue.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Hi, Gerry.

How can this happen?

No idea James, but it is the basis of every suit against home inspectors.


Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

No idea James, but it is the basis of every suit against home inspectors.


Regards

Gerry

Speaking of which....don't you still owe me 10 of them?

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Speaking of which....don't you still owe me 10 of them?

James, you have still failed to produce the 1, as for my 10 I'll buy you a copy of Keith Swifts book.

Regards

Gerry