Kansas Law with Limit of Liability

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Originally Posted by jferry1

The law does not "set a limit as to how much an inspector [can] be sued for". It allows an inspector to limit his liability to $10,000 and that is "good".

A breach of contract is not fraud. Nor is failure to follow the SOP. Fraud is an intentional tort. Punitive damages are a plaintiff's wet dream. They are never awarded.

O.K. failure to adhere to an advertised standard of practice could not be construed as a fraud? I can buy that if there was no evidence that it was deliberate but then wouldn't that be negligence? It's not as though the inspector could say he didn't know or understand the SOP. Either way it seems the ins. co. for the E&O has a way out, and that ain't good either.

[Scott Patterson]

Originally Posted by bhoagland

O.K. failure to adhere to an advertised standard of practice could not be construed as a fraud? I can buy that if there was no evidence that it was deliberate but then wouldn't that be negligence? It's not as though the inspector could say he didn't know or understand the SOP. Either way it seems the ins. co. for the E&O has a way out, and that ain't good either.

E&O is not like homeowners insurance, where you have to prove that the wind came before the water, etc..

If you have E&O and you screw up or you are named in a lawsuit that is based on the inspection you performed you will be covered to the limits of your policy.