Jeff Barnes publicly responds to Jim Bushart, Dan Bowers and others regarding Kansas.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Dan, Paul, James: I applied for one of the Kansas Home Inspectors slots on the board. Recieved letter today from Governor Sebelilus stating that she has chosen another person, and that she will be making the announcement soon.

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Evidently HI's are the weakest link in your state.
You all really need to put pressure on regulating the building industry.

I did a google search and see that it will be effective in 2009.

Is this part true? Home inspectors may not limit their liability to less than $10,000. By the same token, home inspectors are not liable for damages in excess of $10,000 (unless otherwise agreed by the inspector and the person hiring the inspector - and, most likely, additional fees paid)

[Paul Sabados]

Good try Gary. It will be interesting to see just exactly who she picked this time, any guesses? It's now the 20th so she better get off of her duff and get the announcements made. It's a biased board now, lets see if she makes it a clean sweep.

[Paul Sabados]

this part true? Home inspectors may not limit their liability to less than $10,000. By the same token, home inspectors are not liable for damages in excess of $10,000 (unless otherwise agreed by the inspector and the person hiring the inspector - and, most likely, additional fees paid)

Yes and no. Thats the liability portion. In the past we could limit our liabilty, per a standing state statute to the cost of services rendered. All other service groups can still to the same. Now we have a 10K carrot to start things off in the other legal proceding that could have been tossed at us, such as Breech of Contract or Negligence. Also, an inspector can be sued by any party in the real estate transaction, that also includes, seller and agents, which in the past was unheard of and difficult to proceed with due to no actual contractural ties to them. Its a smelly kettle of fish

[Nick Gromicko]

Paul:

That's a new one. Where in the law do you see something that permits sellers and agents to sue an inspector with any greater ease than they could prior to the law?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

Evidently HI's are the weakest link in your state.
You all really need to put pressure on regulating the building industry.

I did a google search and see that it will be effective in 2009.

Is this part true? Home inspectors may not limit their liability to less than $10,000. By the same token, home inspectors are not liable for damages in excess of $10,000 (unless otherwise agreed by the inspector and the person hiring the inspector - and, most likely, additional fees paid)

Home inspectors who are sued for breach of contract or negilgence, as virtually all of them are, can be sued for millions without any limitiation to their liability.

Only an attorney foolish enough to name "error and ommissions" as the basis for his claim will be limited to the $10K.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

IMNSHO, the public always plays a role.........you and I may not be hearing from them directly......they are probably complaining to their agent who in turn places the blame on someone other then themselves (most agents know when a property is a POS)

Nope. According to the legislators, the complaints all came for agents regarding inspectors that killed their deals and cost them, collectively, hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions.

There were no citizens or citizens groups, other than those complaining against the law, to testify in person or in writing.

[Paul Sabados]

That's a new one. Where in the law do you see something that permits sellers and agents to sue an inspector with any greater ease than they could prior to the law?

It's right there in the open.

(d) An action to recover damages for any act or omission of a home
inspector relating to a home inspection or home inspection report must
be brought not more than 12 months from the date the home inspection
was performed and may be initiated only by a party to the real estate
transaction for which the home inspection was conducted.

[Nick Gromicko]

Jim, anything you think is outside the $10,001.00 limitation of liability provided by this law is also outside that which prohibits you from limiting it at all in your contract. Limit it to $1,000 then.

[Paul Sabados]

initiated only by a party to the real estate
transaction

It's almost a grey zone, but it does not exclude them or limit them from taking any action. Party to the transaction includes the buyer, seller, listing agent and selling agent. I wouldn't but it past a broker to take action against what he might determine an inspector being over zealous.

It's in the print and very open to opinion and interpretation.

[Nick Gromicko]

Paul, prior to the law, anyone and everyone could have sued you and they could have waited 100 years to initiate the lawsuits.

Now only parties to the transaction can sue you and they have to initiate it within a year.

I don't see how the paragraph you posted extends or expands your liability any more than what already existed prior to the law.

[Nick Gromicko]

I've been at this for 20 years now and know of no instance where a party without standing (someone other than the inspector's client) sued an inspector, let alone won.

[Nick Gromicko]

You need to prove 4 things to win a negligence suit against an inspector:

1. Duty (You have prove that you are the inspector's client and that he had a duty to you).
2. Breach (You have to prove that the inspector breached his duty to you).
3. Causation (You have to prove that this breach caused damages).
4. Damages (You have to prove what those damages are).

[Nick Gromicko]

Given my post above, I'm amazed that anyone can beat an inspector in court.

[Paul Sabados]

Number 1 is now moot per the law. Negligence is now open to all involved in the transaction. Prior to the law, number 1 was enforceable

Even if the inspector wins in 99 out of 100, the door is open for more frivilous attempts. Further enhanced with the 10K carrot. It's going to happen, plain and simple and the potential for inspectors to be spending additional time and money in stupid court battles will be on the increase. You're right, in the past basically no recourse for others, but now its a different ball game.

The only good part of the law, is the 12 month statute of limitations for liability. And yes, one can still be sued years after the inspection has been performed.