Liability question

[Gerry Beaumont]

Originally Posted by jcahill

More on Mass. Their SOP are fascinating. They actually require the owner to provide safe access to the roof and crawlspace. They also require to owner, if possible, to operate the air conditioner. very interesting wording.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocasubto...ctors&sid=Eoca


I could not find where they prevent liability limitations. Must be in a more generic professional section. Will keep looking.

Hi John, too tired to be going through statute, but here is a board complaint:

William Lebeau, Sandwich: Mr. Lebeau has voluntarily surrendered his license to the Board effective June 4, 2007. Lebeau had allegedly performed a home inspection that had not met the standards set forth by the Board. He also violated the Board’s Rules and Regulations by limiting his liability to damages incurred within one year.

From: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocamodul...8_08&csid=Eoca

[John Cahill]

Found it Gerry.

(v) attempting to limit liability for negligent or wrongful errors or omissions by use of a clause within a performance contract that limits the cost of damages for negligent or wrongful errors or omissions; or

This kind of regulation simply leads to reports that defer liability to someone else with miles of boilerplate. The report becomes less useful.

Inspectors will adjust. The insurance will protect the inspectors business. The intent of legislation "no liability limit and insurance" protects the consumer to some extent. It forces the inspector to be candid about the inspectors personal limitations.

Statute can prevent a limitation of liability; it cannot force acceptance of liability. The inspection focus changes from helping the client to "finding deficiencies in order to defer liability". The buck stops over there.

Kinda of like going to the Doc with a sprained wrist and getting an MRI.

[rstrahan]

Read the Nevada SoP. It does not allow limitations on anything.

RS

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

You send your kids to a summer camp - you sign a "release of liability".

You have plastic surgery - you sign a "release of liability".

You get lasik surgery - you sign a "release of liability".

My engineer performs a engineering study - you sign a "release of liability".

You go to a Marine Corps reunion at Camp Pendleton and after the welcome speech the base has - you sign a "release of liability" saying if you get hurt on the base you won't sue them.

The average real estate contract in my area is filled with "limits of liability" to the realtor and agent. If you make an offer to buy the house - you sign a "release of liability".

Bottom Line - Its a way of life. If we screw up we get sued, no matter what we sign.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

How much liability I'm willing to take for my fee should be negotiable.

Yes, I'll walk Niagara Falls for you without a net IF the PRICE is Right.

In the average house - a home inspector is there 1 time for 2-3 hours.

The seller lived in the house every day for 3, 6 or even 20 years.

The agent listed or showed the house and was in there 2, 3 or 5 times.

The buyer was in the house 2, 3, or 5 times before closing.

The buyer moves in and lives there for 6, 9 or 14 months and then discovers a problem and feels the inspector should be responsible for paying for it.

Maybe - If you bought my super-duper "Big Boy" technically exhaustive inspection for $2,500 OR 1% of the sales price (whichever is more).

No Way Jose - If you bought the $300 basic visual look-see.


I'm not your cradle-to-grave insurance policy NOR did I agree to adopt and raise you. All I did (and you paid for) was me to spend 2-3 hours in your house 1 time and tell you what I could see that it was doing or not doing at that point in time.

Have A Nice Day

[Kevin Luce]

Originally Posted by rstrahan

Manny,

Believe it or not, I agree with you. IMO, fear of tort generally does a better job of keeping people in line than regulation. Regulations are easier to manipulate than jury sentiment.


Kevin,

Are you insured against those claims?



Russell in BubbaLand

I am insured but not going in that direction. I informed Allen Insurance of the claim and informed them I have hired my own lawyer. So far, the lawyer asked for a different Judge and asked for it to go to arbitration per the contract the buyer signed with us.

So far, I have learned a lot on what directions that can be taken and the process. I'm hoping to learn a lot more from this experience since I'm paying for it.

Unlike some here, I support my family with no other income coming in anywhere else. That responsibility forces me to focus on my business and do the best I can. Because of this, it made it a little difficult to make the decision to hire my own lawyer and take the chance (even though I strongly feel I did nothing wrong to justify a lawsuit).

[Kevin Luce]

Originally Posted by dbowers

How much liability I'm willing to take for my fee should be negotiable.

Yes, I'll walk Niagara Falls for you without a net IF the PRICE is Right.

In the average house - a home inspector is there 1 time for 2-3 hours.

The seller lived in the house every day for 3, 6 or even 20 years.

The agent listed or showed the house and was in there 2, 3 or 5 times.

The buyer was in the house 2, 3, or 5 times before closing.

The buyer moves in and lives there for 6, 9 or 14 months and then discovers a problem and feels the inspector should be responsible for paying for it.

Maybe - If you bought my super-duper "Big Boy" technically exhaustive inspection for $2,500 OR 1% of the sales price (whichever is more).

No Way Jose - If you bought the $300 basic visual look-see.


I'm not your cradle-to-grave insurance policy NOR did I agree to adopt and raise you. All I did (and you paid for) was me to spend 2-3 hours in your house 1 time and tell you what I could see that it was doing or not doing at that point in time.

Have A Nice Day

I agree with this to a point.

But if the home inspector reports something to be obviously not true and has set the buyers back thousands of dollars, then the home inspector should be liable. If not, then somebody can play the numbers game. Do 5 inspection a day and make Z amount of money per year. Out of those inspection, he plans on getting sued and X amount of times. X times $500=Y. Y-Z=a good profit for that year.

I see this situation more than I want to from other companies/people. They do things wrong but come out ahead in the end.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Kevin -

Everybody is looking for a black and white answer. Many times the answer is a shade of gray OR a "I don't know - what do you think".

You paid for my opinion - maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not - but you got my opinion. I didn't guarantee I'm gonna be right all the time, I just guaranteed I'd give you my opinion. Thats what you paid for nothing more - nothing less.

In my area, the average "MECHANICAL ONLY" warranty costs about $445. If I could get a structural, environmental and roof warranty to go with that you'd probably pay in the neighborhood of $800 - $1,000 for a 1 year policy.

Why in the world would a home inspector making $300 - $350 for an inspection on the same house be willing to accept much more liability.

If you want insurance - buy it.

[Andrew Cox]

But, don't you think that if an inspector can be proven negligent, and the buyer relied on his negligent report when making the decision to buy, isn't the inspector responsible for more than his fee?
For example,
If I miss (pray never happens!) a structural defect that, if discovered, would have made the buyer decide to turn down this house in favor of another...
and the guy buys this house, then a year later, finds his floor sagging, because of something I should have seen. He winds up spending $20,000 in repairs - I would expect to be liable for his damages.

The critical factors are
1. Real damages
2. Inspector's negligence
3. The negligence CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED TO the damages.

[rcooke]

Originally Posted by acox

But, don't you think that if an inspector can be proven negligent, and the buyer relied on his negligent report when making the decision to buy, isn't the inspector responsible for more than his fee?
For example,
If I miss (pray never happens!) a structural defect that, if discovered, would have made the buyer decide to turn down this house in favor of another...
and the guy buys this house, then a year later, finds his floor sagging, because of something I should have seen. He winds up spending $20,000 in repairs - I would expect to be liable for his damages.

The critical factors are
1. Real damages
2. Inspector's negligence
3. The negligence CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED TO the damages.

WOW! a year later and you think you should be liable for damages just because he spent $20,000;00 in repairs .
I do not know about you but I have to be notified before they do any repairs. How do you know it was not his best friend who is helping to shaft you.
How do you know after a year it was not OK when you did the inspection .
I would be fighting this in Court OK if you want to give in but never me in these circumstances .
...Cookie

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Let me think about this for a minute.

I get a physical today. Standard office type physical - no specialized tests, or invasive testing. Just a "look-see" - temperature, weight, stethoscope listening to lungs and heart, bend over and drop shorts, turn around and bend over table, does my finger hurt OR is it just uncomfortable, put your testes in my hand and cough. OK - you're good to go.

Now about 10 months down the road I have a stroke, get lukemia, find I have stomach cancer, etc. The doctor should be fully liable - right.

Guys - get a life. You've been listening to agents too damn long. How many times have I ever heard a buyer (or their agent) spout -

"If I'd have known the sewer would back up 2 months down the road, I'd never have bought the house". OR

"When we got that 6" rain the basement leaked. Then when we tore off the panelling we found old cracks that have been caulked over". The seller is out of state but the inspector should have ...................."

Sometimes the inspector was an untrained, bozo - but in over 74% of the expert witness cases I've looked at, it was simply "**** happens - sorry".

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

A home inspection is merely a snapshot in time. A picture of the condition of the house the day of the inspection.

The inspector does not do a passing / failing decision - the buyer does that.

The inspection does not determine if the price is right, nor does he/she endorse the deal or make the buying decision.

Just the simple facts: "Its older than Moses, but it's working at this time".
OR
"The gaps in the deck rails are 9" wide. Current standards are 4". This could be a safety concern for your children and you may want to change it. No sir, the seller is not required to change this for you".

[Sue M. Furlan]

Well what if the poor inspection requlted in extensive water damage to the home with in 4 days after purchase and the inspector said that there were no real issues to report. The resulting cost to the new home purchaser was $10,000 + . Do you really think that only reimbursing the cost of a job improperly done is fair? I certainly do not. If the inspection was done throughly and had informed the customer of the potential of water damage then they would be able to make an informed purchasing decision and not had a "move in condition home" per the inspection report instantly become a major fixer upper in the first rain storm. This actually happened to me. As a purchaser I rely on the expertese of the inspector to help me make an informed decision It does not help when they do not actually inspect the attic or look at the roof from the level of the roof, ignore bad caulking (not reporting it).

What I want to know is is it a requirement for the home inspectors to carry insurance?

[ccurrins]

Originally Posted by Sue M. Furlan

What I want to know is is it a requirement for the home inspectors to carry insurance?

Only in some licensed States.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Sue -

What you described is a condition of THE HOUSE. I can't tell you how many times I've been hired by an attorney, homeowner, insurance company, etc when somebodies roof leaked to go look at it and fix blame on someone so the owner could get SOMEBODY to pay for this.

Almost everyone of these people would never have bought the house if only they'd known that ................

About 2/3 of the time, when I go out to look at the property, the aggrieved owner immediately takes me to somewhere in the house - points there finger up THERE and says, it leaked right there.

I go outside get on the roof its its not to steep and easily walkable, and SEE absolutely NOTHING I can definitevly say "Thats it, theres the cause". Ain't that amazing, I know theres a leak, I know where its coming in at, and I still can't immediately pinpoint the leak.

Other times I get outside and see dried up caulking, a bent flashing, a tear in the roof covering AND have multiple choices that MIGHT be the culprit.

When its leaked - it gets a whole lot easier to say "The Roof Leaks".

By the way, $10,000 is a whole lot of DAMAGE for 1 roof leak. AND if it caused that much damage 4 days after move-in, I'd be taking a GOOD long look at the sellers.

At 4:40 PM I had just finished a 15 mile bike ride and other than cramped thigh muscles felt great - at 3:20 AM I woke with a massive chest pain - and at 6:15 AM I'm going into to open heart surgery.

***** happens ..............

For a fee of $250 - $350 on the average house, the inspector is not a warranty company.