"Who should get the blame?" she asks....

[Brian E. Kelly]

Mentioning code has not proven to be a problem.

And yes the AHJ may be the final word, but they do not get to make up their own special rules either.

They may decide to overlook or override certain codes, but they do not get to make them up on the spot.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by jbushart

One of our opinions is crap. On that, we can agree.

Referring to codes in a home inspection report is asking for trouble. The poor schmuck whose client is quoted in the first post to this thread (no matter what you think of her claim, she is on her way to a lawsuit) is proof, enough for many. The lawsuits on record are enough for many more.

We home inspectors are pretty cocky guys as we swagger through a house impressing our clients with our wisdom and education. We can John Wayne ourselves for three solid hours citing off everything we know or ever learned as we dazzle our clients with our brilliance. While we do this, though, we raise and raise and raise their expectations to such an unreal level that they feel cheated and dismayed by the first defect they find that we....the John Waynes of the building industry....missed.

Then, when they want us to be accountable for what we did NOT find....we try to scramble and hide behind the terms "generalist" and "accessible to observation".

It can backfire.

By the way.....I do encourage all of my competitors to agree with Eric.

First off, if there is a lawsuit stemming from the original post, it will not be for citing or not citing code.

Next, if you are one of the "John Wayne" inspectors, you deserve what you get.
When you use the term "we", please be more specific and do not include me in that term.

As of yet, you still haven't proved that citing code will get you sued as a basis for a winnable lawsuit. You most likely never will.

I believe it was Jerry Peck who said, and I am paraphrasing, "you will not be successfully sued for doing more than the minimum".


I'll ask again, show a case where the inspector was sued successfully for citing code.


Finally, each inspector is free to do what they feel is best. I feel it is best to arm my Clients with information should any items in the report be questioned. That goes as far as contacting the manufacturer and getting their interpretation, as they supersede all building codes.

[Chuck Evans]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Home inspectors are very, very rarely "successfully sued" for anything. Ask the hundreds of other guys what it is like to be unsuccessfully sued. It still costs attorney fees, time, and stress.

Yet, here is a case in Texas where an inspector referred to "code" and was successfully sued (he paid a judgment) by the seller. His expert witness agreed with you....but the court did not agree with the expert witness and the inspector paid.

Do not refer to codes in your reports. Here is a home inspector who kept his name out of suit by keeping codes out of his inspection.

You misrepresent both the premise of the case and the outcome. But I guess you feel that it was necessary in order to try to make it support your argument. You're fast and loose with facts - are you runing for local office?

[Michael R. Boyett]

I agree Chuck. Jim, you need to go read the original lawsuit and the outcome. It is nothing as you describe. This is how urban legends proliferate.

[James H. Bushart]

The suit centers upon a seller's objection to the inspector's use and reference to "code" in describing a defect. The inspector provided an expert witness who claimed that the inspector's use of a code reference was not only proper, but he would be remiss under Texas law to exclude it. The court did not buy it. The inspector settled. While settlement does not represent a finding of guilt, it is certainly not a "win". Frankly, even a "win" would come as a great enough expense to qualify as a loss. The idea is not to have a suit filed against you...not to "win" lawsuits.

What is incorrect about this?

The argument against incorporating code references in a home inspection report does not hinge upon this isolated case...and if I misrepresented it, it was not intentional. I've stated my understanding of it. Tell me where I messed up.

[Chuck Evans]

The suit was a nuisance suit brought by a disgruntled seller, who was an apparently under employed attorney.

The premise of the suit was that the plaintiff claimed that the inspector performed "Engineering" in the course of his inspection resulting in the loss of his contract of sale, hence the claim for tortuous interference. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers reviewed the report and opined that the report did NOT constitute engineering. The claim regarding code reference was spurious and was refuted by the expert opinion of a member of the TREC Inspector Advisory Board. Your claim that "the court did not buy it" is FALSE, because the court never offered an opinion on the matter. Further your claim that the case went to trial is FALSE because the case was settled through the E&O carrier without ever going to trial. Your apparent presumption that had there been no citation of model building codes in the report the case would never have been presented is erroneous.

Whether your false statements were made out of ignorance or whether you intentionally misrepresented I cannot say at this time, but your claims regarding the suit are none the less FALSE and should not have been made.

Is the suit an example of how an inspector can be sued for spurious reasons: YES.

Is it an example of how you do not have to lose a suit or be in the wrong to have cost a great deal of money: YES.

Did the citation of model building code in the report have anything to do with why the suit was presented or would omission of the citation prevented the suit or affected the outcome: ABSOLUTELY NOT and I think you know that.

Stop spreading falsehoods.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by cevans

The suit was a nuisance suit brought by a disgruntled seller, who was an apparently under employed attorney.

The premise of the suit was that the plaintiff claimed that the inspector performed "Engineering" in the course of his inspection resulting in the loss of his contract of sale, hence the claim for tortuous interference. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers reviewed the report and opined that the report did NOT constitute engineering. The claim regarding code reference was spurious and was refuted by the expert opinion of a member of the TREC Inspector Advisory Board. Your claim that "the court did not buy it" is FALSE, because the court never offered an opinion on the matter. Further your claim that the case went to trial is FALSE because the case was settled through the E&O carrier without ever going to trial. Your apparent presumption that had there been no citation of model building codes in the report the case would never have been presented is erroneous.

Whether your false statements were made out of ignorance or whether you intentionally misrepresented I cannot say at this time, but your claims regarding the suit are none the less FALSE and should not have been made.

Is the suit an example of how an inspector can be sued for spurious reasons: YES.

Is it an example of how you do not have to lose a suit or be in the wrong to have cost a great deal of money: YES.

Did the citation of model building code in the report have anything to do with why the suit was presented or would omission of the citation prevented the suit or affected the outcome: ABSOLUTELY NOT and I think you know that.

Stop spreading falsehoods.

I think this is well stated Chuck and this is also how I understood the case.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by cevans

The suit was a nuisance suit brought by a disgruntled seller, who was an apparently under employed attorney.

The premise of the suit was that the plaintiff claimed that the inspector performed "Engineering" in the course of his inspection resulting in the loss of his contract of sale, hence the claim for tortuous interference. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers reviewed the report and opined that the report did NOT constitute engineering. The claim regarding code reference was spurious and was refuted by the expert opinion of a member of the TREC Inspector Advisory Board. Your claim that "the court did not buy it" is FALSE, because the court never offered an opinion on the matter. Further your claim that the case went to trial is FALSE because the case was settled through the E&O carrier without ever going to trial. Your apparent presumption that had there been no citation of model building codes in the report the case would never have been presented is erroneous.

Whether your false statements were made out of ignorance or whether you intentionally misrepresented I cannot say at this time, but your claims regarding the suit are none the less FALSE and should not have been made.

Is the suit an example of how an inspector can be sued for spurious reasons: YES.

Is it an example of how you do not have to lose a suit or be in the wrong to have cost a great deal of money: YES.

Did the citation of model building code in the report have anything to do with why the suit was presented or would omission of the citation prevented the suit or affected the outcome: ABSOLUTELY NOT and I think you know that.

Stop spreading falsehoods.

You have simply taken my facts and put your own spin on them.

Why did the seller claim that the inspector was acting as an engineer? If it was NOT his reference to the building codes, why did his expert witness have to defend his reference to them.

The seller lost the sale and tried to recover from the inspector. There was court action, depositions and costly preparation for trial and .... as I stated and you agreed....the inspector settled.

Again....inspectors who want to avoid the costly expenses of such lawsuits (frivolous or not) will not invite them. Referring to "code violations" is a sure way of inviting such action. I'm sure that if this guy could do it over again, he would not have made the references he did. Hindsight is 20/20.

No inspector is empowered to report a code violation. No inspector is capable of actually recognizing a code violation. We may find something that is not consistent with the code, but without having benefit of the AHJ's observations and opinion, we don't know what he may have ruled or why by simple observation.

Referencing building codes has been and can be an added expense that one would prefer to avoid.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jbushart

You have simply taken my facts and put your own spin on them.

Why did the seller claim that the inspector was acting as an engineer? If it was NOT his reference to the building codes, why did his expert witness have to defend his reference to them.

The seller lost the sale and tried to recover from the inspector. There was court action, depositions and costly preparation for trial and .... as I stated and you agreed....the inspector settled.

Again....inspectors who want to avoid the costly expenses of such lawsuits (frivolous or not) will not invite them. Referring to "code violations" is a sure way of inviting such action. I'm sure that if this guy could do it over again, he would not have made the references he did. Hindsight is 20/20.

No inspector is empowered to report a code violation. No inspector is capable of actually recognizing a code violation. We may find something that is not consistent with the code, but without having benefit of the AHJ's observations and opinion, we don't know what he may have ruled or why by simple observation.

Referencing building codes has been and can be an added expense that one would prefer to avoid.

James, most anyone who reads a Code Book can recognize a Code Violation.

You are just making stuff up.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

James, most anyone who reads a Code Book can recognize a Code Violation.

You are just making stuff up.

Brian..according to the code (R113.2) the person authorized to serve notice of a "violation" is the building official. Not a building inspector. To record in your report that such-and-such is a "code violation" is to publish that something is "unlawful" (See R113.1). You don't have that authority.

Publish in your report that a seller's property is in violation of the law and have your client walk away from the deal....and be wrong because the AHJ interprets it differently than you do....and you could end up in trouble. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

[Chuck Evans]

Originally Posted by jbushart

You have simply taken my facts and put your own spin on them.

Why did the seller claim that the inspector was acting as an engineer? If it was NOT his reference to the building codes, why did his expert witness have to defend his reference to them.

The seller lost the sale and tried to recover from the inspector. There was court action, depositions and costly preparation for trial and .... as I stated and you agreed....the inspector settled.

Again....inspectors who want to avoid the costly expenses of such lawsuits (frivolous or not) will not invite them. Referring to "code violations" is a sure way of inviting such action. I'm sure that if this guy could do it over again, he would not have made the references he did. Hindsight is 20/20.

No inspector is empowered to report a code violation. No inspector is capable of actually recognizing a code violation. We may find something that is not consistent with the code, but without having benefit of the AHJ's observations and opinion, we don't know what he may have ruled or why by simple observation.

Referencing building codes has been and can be an added expense that one would prefer to avoid.

No, what I have done is exposed several falsehoods that you stated earlier in your attempt to bolster your argument.

Let's be clear on one thing: Citing & referencing "model building codes" and reporting "code violations" are separate and distinctly different actions.

Identifying "code violations" is the reponsibility of the AHJ an should not be attempted by the home inspector.

Citing a model building code in a report does not encroach on the AHJ's territory.

[Chuck Evans]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Again....inspectors who want to avoid the costly expenses of such lawsuits (frivolous or not) will not invite them. Referring to "code violations" is a sure way of inviting such action. I'm sure that if this guy could do it over again, he would not have made the references he did. Hindsight is 20/20.

Now you're making yet another FALSE premise - I certainly hope that your inspection reporting is more accurate than your posts here, you might be susceptible to lawsuits.

The suit did not say anything about "code voilation" nor did the item in the report say anything about "code violation". You really should stop making this crap up.

Interesting how confident you are that you know the mind of the inspector and what he would do differently in the future. Why guess? Call him up so that you can avail him of your vast wisdom and tell him the error of his ways. He's a fellow NACHI member. I've talked to him. You should try talking TO him rather than ABOUT him. If you did you might know what your talking about so you won't have to manufacture your "facts".

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The suit centers upon a seller's objection to the inspector's use and reference to "code" in describing a defect. The inspector provided an expert witness who claimed that the inspector's use of a code reference was not only proper, but he would be remiss under Texas law to exclude it. The court did not buy it. The inspector settled. While settlement does not represent a finding of guilt, it is certainly not a "win". Frankly, even a "win" would come as a great enough expense to qualify as a loss. The idea is not to have a suit filed against you...not to "win" lawsuits.

What is incorrect about this?

The argument against incorporating code references in a home inspection report does not hinge upon this isolated case...and if I misrepresented it, it was not intentional. I've stated my understanding of it. Tell me where I messed up.

Sigh.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I tend to side with Jim. There may not be specific lawsuits regarding the quoting of code, but I can see his point.

Say you quote specific code in your report, maybe the IRC on something. But then you fail to quote code on a variety of other items that are also part of the IRC. Items that are the point of the lawsuit against you. The fact that you quoted code is going to be the prime point of argument against you. If you did it once, a client would come to expect it on all items you inspected. It gives ammunition to the plaintiff that you are an expert and not a generalist.

Never quote code. Say it doesn't meet current building practices or standards or even current safety practices. But using the "C" word in a report is not in your best interest. Puffery at its worst.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

OK, Let's try a different approach.
How would you non-code citing inspectors write up what is in the picture below?