Crack in a fire box...pic included

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by bboerner

That's their problem. I told them in my report they should get a level 2 and the reasons behind it along with doing my level 1 inspection. If they still want to light up the fireplace without taking my advice atleast I know after reading about them in the local paper I did my job. Sad to say however you can't hold everyone's hand.

I'd rather have my client is alive in a few years to hire me to do their next inspection.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

I'd rather have my client is alive in a few years to hire me to do their next inspection.

To be honest IMO your setting yourself up for additional liability. You can state one needs a level 2 all you want. Bottom line is in the event of a fire and say you somehow got dragged into a lawsuit I can see it now...

Judge: Sir do you have any rules or regulations that governs your profession.

You: Yes sir NACHI SOP.

Judge: What does the SOP state your responsibilty is in regards to a fireplace?

You: The inspector shall inspect:

A. the fireplace, and open and close the damper door, if readily accessible and operable;

Judge: And why did you not inspect the fireplace?

You: I don't believe in it unless one can see the entire unit.

Judge: According to fire investigator the dampner was stuck shut. You failed to report this in your report. Mr. James (75yrs of age) lit a fire and smoke started to fill the room. Mr. James tried to open the dampner however it was defective. Smoke took down Mr. and Mrs. James and they are no longer with us. Again Mark tell me why you felt a level 1 inspection is not needed sir?

[Michael R. Boyett]

Billy...Mark is well within his rights to disclaim the fireplace and all of its components if he so chooses for whatever reasons he wants. By telling the client verbally and in his inspection report that the fireplace is not included is perfectly fine. I, however, do like Doug...a Level I with a recommendation to have a Level II performed by a licensed chimney sweep.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Billy...Mark is well within his rights to disclaim the fireplace and all of its components if he so chooses for whatever reasons he wants. By telling the client verbally and in his inspection report that the fireplace is not included is perfectly fine. I, however, do like Doug...a Level I with a recommendation to have a Level II performed by a licensed chimney sweep.

What good is our SOP then? My point if we don't all follow it as a group then really what good is it? I understand he's within his rights however as you know a judge will make a final decision and I would hate to see him in a tight spot because something as simple as the damper wasn't looked at.

[Chuck Evans]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

I find it morally unconscionable to allow anyone to think that their fireplace is safe without a Level II. Since, I am not qualified to do a Level II myself that leaves one option.

I'm curious that if you feel a Level II inspection is that critical to safety, do you not allow clients to schedule an inspection with you for a home with a fireplace without also scheduling a Level II inspection? Do you automatically subcontract a Level II inspector whenever you book an inspection for a home with a fireplace? Have you gone back to see what percentage of clients actually have a Level II inspection done vs. those that wind up going without any inspection whatsoever (I'm betting most wind up without any inspection)?

With all due respect, if you do not do any these things, your position comes off as more of a dodge of responsibility than a true concern for the safety of the client.

I agree that it's your right to disclaim it, but I'm not sure I'm convinced it's for the client's best interest

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Billy...Mark is well within his rights to disclaim the fireplace and all of its components if he so chooses for whatever reasons he wants.

Please tell me where NACHI's SOP says any of us can disclaim a system or component of the home "for whatever reason we want" other than it being inaccessible or unsafe.

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by rmaday

I don't see how it's differing since there is language for excluding systems.

If someone called up for simply a structural inspection, you would NOT have to inspect the roof, HVAC, Plumbing, etc.

Mark himself said he differed with the SOP.

The limited inspection you mention isn't even defined as a home inspection in my state.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Please tell me where NACHI's SOP says any of us can disclaim a system or component of the home "for whatever reason we want" other than it being inaccessible or unsafe.

http://www.nachi.org/sop.htm

Originally Posted by SOP

Components may include any combination of mechanical, structural, electrical, plumbing, or other essential systems or portions of the home, as identified and agreed to by the Client and Inspector, prior to the inspection process.

That seems to do it for me.

You're right Joe, a single structural inspection isn't defined as a Home Inspection in IL either. A roof and structural inspection would be considered a home inspection as it is two systems.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by rmaday

That seems to do it for me.

You're right Joe, a single structural inspection isn't defined as a Home Inspection in IL either. A roof and structural inspection would be considered a home inspection as it is two systems.

Rick I see where your trying to go however if your contract states your inspecting per the SOP you better include everything unless you specifically state each and every item that's not included and why.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Please tell me where NACHI's SOP says any of us can disclaim a system or component of the home "for whatever reason we want" other than it being inaccessible or unsafe.

Joe, serving two masters sometimes gets confusing for me. I abide first by my state's SOP and then, a distant second, is INACHI's. Generally speaking, if I have abided by my state's SOP then I've more than covered INACHI's. One difference is that we have a departure provision that INACHI may not. it reads:

(B) If a part, component, or system
required for inspection is not inspected, the
inspector shall:
(i) advise the client at the
earliest practical opportunity that the part,
component, or system will not be inspected;
and
(ii) make an appropriate notation
on the inspection report form, clearly stating
the reason the part, component, or system was
not inspected.
(C) If the inspector routinely departs
from inspection of a part, system, or
component, the earliest practical opportunity
for the notice required by this subsection is the
first contact with the prospect and the inspector
has reason to believe that the property being
inspected has the part, system, or component
the inspector routinely does not inspect.

A while back a Commentary was being developed for our state SOP and the pertinent section read like this (bold is mine):

Nothing in the Standards require an inspector to put himself in a position of unacceptable risk to that individual inspector. It is clearly realized that different inspectors have different levels of tolerance for heights, for the use of ladders,and from exposure to live electrical components, etc. This provision of the Departure Provision recognizes those facts and creates a system by which the consumer can be informed that there are limitations, for whatever reason, beyond which an inspector will not venture. However, the concern of the Texas Real Estate Commission is that the consumer has the time necessary to perform the due diligence necessary for the consumer to make an informed choice. It is the requirement of this section that an inspector who does not perform certain tasks, such as climbing ladders, walking roof surfaces, walking through or crawling attic spaces, entering crawl spaces under houses, removing covers from panel boxes, electrical cabinets, etc. inform the consumer or the consumer’s representative at first contact. This often means when the consumer or the consumer’s representative calls, emails or otherwise contacts the inspector to arrange for inspection services. It is expected that the inspector respect the need of the consumer to have the opportunity to complete their due diligence investigations during the limited time period afforded by the option period.

So, that's where I'm coming from. In other words, if I were to elect to not inspect fireplaces then I could disclaim them upfront with the client and if the client agrees then I would be in compliance with my state's SOP. If the client didn't agree he could move on to the next HI on his list. So, if I decide that I don't inspect a certain item because it's inaccessible, unsafe or I'm not qualified to inspect or whatever reason I determine then I have a path via my state SOP to depart from the SOP. I can also depart from the SOP if the client and I agree to delete any items he is not concerned about, and that comes in handy for certain investor inspections. If any of that violates INACHI's SOP then so be it.

[David A. Andersen]

What SOP are you guys reading?

Why do you think Mark MUST inspect it?


2.4. Heating
I. The inspector shall inspect:
II. The inspector is not required to:

A. inspect or evaluate interiors of flues or chimneys, fire
chambers, heat exchangers, combustion air systems, fresh air
intakes, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, electronic air filters,
geothermal systems or solar heating systems.

2.8. Fireplace

I. The inspector shall inspect:
II. The inspector is not required to:

A. inspect the flue or vent system.
B. inspect the interior of chimneys or flues, fire doors or screens,
seals or gaskets, or mantels.
C. determine the need for a chimney sweep.
D. operate gas fireplace inserts.
E. light pilot flames.
F. determine the appropriateness of any installation.
G. inspect automatic fuel-feed devices.
H. inspect combustion and/or make-up air devices.
I. inspect heat distribution assists, whether gravity controlled or
fan-assisted.
J. ignite or extinguish fires.
K. determine adequacy of draft or draft characteristics.
L. move fireplace inserts, stoves, or firebox contents.
M. perform a smoke test.
N. dismantle or remove any component.
O. perform a National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA)-
style inspection.
P. perform a Phase I fireplace and chimney inspection.

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by dandersen

What SOP are you guys reading?

Why do you think Mark MUST inspect it?


2.4. Heating
I. The inspector shall inspect:
II. The inspector is not required to:

A. inspect or evaluate interiors of flues or chimneys, fire
chambers, heat exchangers, combustion air systems, fresh air
intakes, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, electronic air filters,
geothermal systems or solar heating systems.

2.8. Fireplace

I. The inspector shall inspect:
II. The inspector is not required to:

A. inspect the flue or vent system.
B. inspect the interior of chimneys or flues, fire doors or screens,
seals or gaskets, or mantels.
C. determine the need for a chimney sweep.
D. operate gas fireplace inserts.
E. light pilot flames.
F. determine the appropriateness of any installation.
G. inspect automatic fuel-feed devices.
H. inspect combustion and/or make-up air devices.
I. inspect heat distribution assists, whether gravity controlled or
fan-assisted.
J. ignite or extinguish fires.
K. determine adequacy of draft or draft characteristics.
L. move fireplace inserts, stoves, or firebox contents.
M. perform a smoke test.
N. dismantle or remove any component.
O. perform a National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA)-
style inspection.
P. perform a Phase I fireplace and chimney inspection.

Thanks, David.

It would do some of us good to read the SOP we operate under to understand it better even if we go beyond it.

[Michael R. Boyett]

David, Larry...I think the issue that Mark has indicated he does not even do the folllowing per the INACHI SOP, but he does tell the client that upfront & why:

I. The inspector shall inspect:

A. the fireplace, and open and close the damper door, if readily
accessible and operable;
B. hearth extensions and other permanently installed components;
C. and report as in need of repair deficiencies in the lintel, hearth
and material surrounding the fireplace, including fireplace
opening clearance from visible combustible materials.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by bboerner

Rick I see where your trying to go however if your contract states your inspecting per the SOP you better include everything unless you specifically state each and every item that's not included and why.

Yup. Per Illinois law (and IMO good business practice), any system not to be inspected must be stated in the contract. The why doesn't matter as long as the client knows what their getting with the inspection.

Also, as required by law, my contract states that I will inspect to IL SOP which states, in part

Originally Posted by IL SOP

These Standards are not intended to limit home inspectors from:

1) Including other inspection services, systems or components in addition to those defined in these standards of practice; and

2) Excluding systems and components in the written agreement from the inspection

Licensing solved this.

[Mark Nahrgang]

From my inspection agreement:

The inspection and report do not address and are not intended to address the possible presence of or danger from any potentially harmful substances and environmental hazards including but not limited to radon gas, mold, lead paint, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, toxic or flammable chemicals and water and airborne hazards such as mold mildew or fungus. Also, excluded are inspections of and report on spas, swimming pools, wells, septic systems, chimneys/fireplaces. security systems, central vacuum systems, water softeners, sprinkler systems, propane tanks, fire and safety equipment and the presence or absence of rodents and termites, unless contracted otherwise.