Bad Me

[Charley L. Bottger]

Hey guys here is a good example of a loose wire no visible indication of burning insulation. The breaker was a double pole 220 volt with what should have been equal load on both legs. The actual temp did not concern me but with one leg glowing warmer than the other one I just could not help my self had to know if the lug was loose and sure enough the screw was as loose as all get out. Yes I know I am not suppose to be checking lugs but this was a learning situation for me so I did it anyway BAD ME.

[kpierce]

Very cool! I'd really like to get one of those cameras but I can't get past the added liability part.

[Charley L. Bottger]

Originally Posted by kpierce

Very cool! I'd really like to get one of those cameras but I can't get past the added liability part.

You should do some re-thinking IMHO it reduces my liability I have had the training to support any IR that I use in a report Gotta LUV it

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by cbottger

You should do some re-thinking IMHO it reduces my liability I have had the training to support any IR that I use in a report Gotta LUV it

Ditto. I wish inspectors would educate themselves on the actual reduced liability of using IR instead of assuming. When I discussed this with my lawyer and gave him a demo, he told me he would never recommend a real estate transaction without using an IR camera, and hasn't!

[David A. Andersen]

I wish inspectors would educate themselves on the actual reduced liability of using IR instead of assuming.

AMEN!

There is so much ***-u-&-me-ing going on sometimes!

Last night on the Ferry/Compton phone seminar an unrelated question was brought up about liability of doing a re-inspection.

Ferry says no increased liability, but you will not convince everyone here. If you did a poll you'd see, (heaven forbid)!

[kpierce]

Don't get me wrong. The comment wasn't a bash by any means. I think those cameras are freakin' cool and I commend those that use them for the extensive training involved. I just feel that clients will expect a lot more from the inspection. Regardless of you setting the expectation, they would still think you have x-ray vision and should find absolutely everything inside all walls. Doesn't being able to see through walls add to the overall scope of an inspection, therefore, adding liability that wouldn't have existed previously?

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by dandersen

AMEN!

There is so much ***-u-&-me-ing going on sometimes!

Last night on the Ferry/Compton phone seminar an unrelated question was brought up about liability of doing a re-inspection.

Ferry says no increased liability, but you will not convince everyone here. If you did a poll you'd see, (heaven forbid)!

That was me David.

Even if he said I would have increased liability, it would not deter me from doing my best.

I am in no hurry to pay big money on a product I can get along fine without, but do not see any need to belittle those that try to improve service in any way they can.

I think the only problem Inspectors have is when those using IR act as if it is needed to do a home inspection, which brings out the defense mechanism in most.

Kinda like saying , if you do not have an infra red thermometer , you should get out of the profession.

Non the less we all do what we feel is best for us (or the client) which makes it good for business.

[David A. Andersen]

Thanks for asking that question and getting it on the record!

Even if he said I would have increased liability, it would not deter me from doing my best.

Agreed.

I am in no hurry to pay big money on a product I can get along fine without, but do not see any need to belittle those that try to improve service in any way they can.

I forgot my camera the other day and did just fine without it. Found all kinds of moisture damage in walls, ceilings, roof, hot electrical wiring at a breaker etc... The only thing that I likely missed was the ability of documentation.

I don't think IR HI's say everyone should have one, maybe I missed someone.
If someone has the ("need to belittle"), I don't think that is right.
This may be confused with comparison marketing though. But Heck, if you spent $5k on a camera and $1k(+) on training, wouldn't you market it?

I don't believe in doing Mold Testing.
My State says I don't have to.
Some Inspectors do.
Some clients specifically have a "need to know".
I don't feel left out in the cold because I don't get the job, or that they are taking unfair marketing advantage against me.

I try to market IR and HVAC to those clients that have a need to know. If they don't need to know, the job goes to another HI. I have a high overhead due to the distance to my service area. I have no intention of competing with a local HI who can do it for less. I do however, market above them. Why not? I have a $13k camera, with $7k in education behind it.

You have a distinct advantage over me. You don't have a Hybrid car payment, and can under price me legitamently (not low balling)! I think every HI should evaluate what they can do and carve out their place in the market share.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Charley - Which IR camera and model you using??

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Ferry says no increased liability, but you will not convince everyone here.

Okay...I'll play.

Ferry, a lawyer, says there is "no increased liability" for an inspector who provides his approval for the repair work done by someone else.

The only place that is written, by the way, is in the NEC and various local codes where the AHJ (not home inspector) is not liable. But Ferry said there is no "increased" liability. We will go with that.

Will the Plaintiff's lawyer...holding a copy of the re-inspection report showing the inspector's "okay" for the new service panel in front of the smoldering rubble that was once his client's home...agree with Ferry? Or will we have....as we always do in every lawsuit in every courtroom in America...one lawyer arguing on one side of the issue, and another arguing from the other side?

[David A. Andersen]

James,

As I have asked you so many times in the past, when you post examples like this, how about referencing the specific case you are discussing?
I'm sure Joe Ferry can quote you cases all day long.

If you were there...
Mr. Ferry went on to say that if you identified an issue (using your example as the electrical panel) that is following the standards of practice, then you are more than qualified to go back and say that the issue that you reported on had been addressed and no longer exists as you initially observed it.

You should never be "evaluating" the capacity or installation practices of the panel anyway. You're there to report adverse conditions that you observe. If you have a hot electric wire, you're more than qualified to go back and say that it's not there anymore. You are not saying in anyway shape or form that the work performed by the electrician (removing the hot wire) is adequate or guaranteed. You're saying that they did indeed find that specific wire and took some course of action to remove it.
You are the one, along with other bottom selecting lawyers that are reading into this and throwing innuendo around.

If a light bulb is burned out, I think you're more than qualified to come back and say it now sheds light on the subject!

Granted, when Superman home inspector shows up trying to call on illegal conditions and enforcing building code requirements and then goes back and tries to determine if it complies with code, he is liable. That's because he was liable in the 1st place, not because he just did a re-inspection.

Get real!

[James H. Bushart]

So...

"Basement shows signs of moisture intrusion. Recommend that a licensed contractor yada yada yada."

"Double hung kitchen window shows signs of moisture intrusion at and around the sill. Recommend that a yada yada."

"Attic shows signs of past moisture intrusion. Recommend that a yada yada yada...."

You come back. All visible signs of past moisture intrusion are gone.

What do you report?

[David A. Andersen]

Right, you report:

All visible signs of past moisture intrusion are gone.

You are obviously leaving out a whole lot (as you always seem to do), the answer is that whatever you did the first time, you do it again. Is that so hard?

I for one would AGAIN provide local weather records from the national weather service to show a comparison of the test conditions.

And of course, point out that what you looked at today appears adequate for those conditions, but that we can not predict the future outcome as conditions change.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Right, you report:



You are obviously leaving out a whole lot (as you always seem to do), the answer is that whatever you did the first time, you do it again. Is that so hard?

I disagree.

My report showed that there was evidence of past moisture intrusion. My reinspection shows that the evidence is no longer there.

Does that mean that the moisture intrusion has been abated? Is there rotting wood behind the new drywall? What about the framing around the window?

No...if I simply reported on what I reported the first time....and the window fell out, the basement flooded at the next rain, or the roof leaked....it could prove rather expensive for me.

Don't you think?

[David A. Andersen]

Not actually, if you did the first inspection by SOP and again followed the SOP in the re-inspect, why would you be liable for something your not responsible for in the first place?