Infrared Liability, Your Thoughts

[Jason Kaylor]

John,

In your list of items or exceptions you have listed in your contract, you might want to use the verbage "including, but not limited to;"

You might also want to exclude electrical as well as roofing, unless you are a qualified electrician.

Personally I would check out the Infraspection standards for each type of inspection, and you might want to give Jim Seffrin a call and ask what he would charge for their contract template. Infraspection not only trains, but owns an infrared inspection business as well.

JJ

[rking6]

Thanks Kevin, this is my thoughts exactly. I have now however included a new area within my HI agreement allowing them to choose the additional service, and if they choose not to the loss of benefits with the technology, including outlining the service if they choose to do so after speaking with an attorney, this way if they choose not to utilize it the proof is in the pudding.

Jason, good point I have spoke to Jim and Chris (I hope that's his name, and correct spelling my apologies if its not) and both gentleman have been very informative on many issues regarding infrared, I can't say enough good things about their training or their integrity and willingness to help people. If anyone is serious about training, I would at least take the time to really consider Infraspection Institute.

Thanks for the input gentleman.

[John Evans]

Jason,

Have not included the Infrared clause yet, appreciate the input. I did complete the Infraspection Level 1 course earlier this year. Jim Seffrin was the instructor, great job!

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

I haven't run this past any other inspectors (other than on this thread), but I have run it past and through my attorneys. My attorneys are California Real Estate Attorneys who specialize in Contract Law and Construction-Defect Litigation. I respect your opinion Kevin, but I trust their opinions when it comes to protecting me and my assets.

Originally Posted by krichardson

I will continue to charge extra for the additional service and have my clients sign an addendum to my Agreement outlining the scope.

The key here is the word "and." If I charge extra for the service, I must (to protect myself) have an addendum or separate agreement outlining my process or scope.

If I do not charge extra for the service, I do not need an addendum to my PIA.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by jpope

I haven't run this past any other inspectors (other than on this thread), but I have run it past and through my attorneys. My attorneys are California Real Estate Attorneys who specialize in Contract Law and Construction-Defect Litigation. I respect your opinion Kevin, but I trust their opinions when it comes to protecting me and my assets.

The key here is the word "and." If I charge extra for the service, I must (to protect myself) have an addendum or separate agreement outlining my process or scope.

If I do not charge extra for the service, I do not need an addendum to my PIA.

Yea, you have a strange breed of folks out there in sunny CA. Good luck in your business

Kevin

[Chuck Lambert]

Originally Posted by krichardson

Yea, you have a strange breed of folks out there in sunny CA. Good luck in your business

Kevin

Per Allen Insurance and FREA Insurance using a thermal imager during a home inspection the inspector has full coverage no additional writer needed. Think about it, it is a TOOL to help you find defects.

Seperate call for investigative IR work NOW you can get a seperate IR policy if you want. You are being called out because of a defect or problem,,,completly different beast.

Chuck

[David A. Andersen]

Originally Posted by jpope

I don't charge extra for using my thermal imager. It's just another tool - just like my electrical testing instruments, moisture meter, flashlight, etc. The imager just gives me a better picture of the condition of the home and its systems. Should I charge extra for using my flashlight, or my SureTest?

If you do charge extra for using it, or offer it as a stand-alone service, you had better include something in the PIA that outlines the "scope" of the IR "scan" that will be performed.

My inspections are performed within the scope of nationally recognized standards. The fact that I use "sophisticated instruments" does not imply that I am checking for anything beyond those standards.

That is the way my insurance provider looks at it.
"Just another tool for the job"(his words).

So long as I'm there doing a home inspection my coverage extends through the camera. If I'm not "Home Inspecting", rather looking at the local nuclear power plant, that is something different.

[Bruce A. King]

Same with my insurance company, just another tool we can use to help do inspections. The liability that inspectors need to understand is more about making improper writeups where the seller or builder could tear out a wall and find no issue. These cameras require a lot of thinking during their use including knowing how the sun rays have changed locations on the structure during the 3 hours you are there.

[Mark E. Northrup]

Originally Posted by ldapkus

I've been considering offering breast exams as an ancillary service!!

Linas you would have to find a woman that would be willing to pay you. I think you would be in the poor house. LOL
Mark

[Wayne Schreiber]

Speaking of liability.

What about all these websites where home inspectors make claims of being able to see through walls with their cameras?

[David A. Andersen]

Law suit waiting to happen!

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by wschreiber

Speaking of liability.

What about all these websites where home inspectors make claims of being able to see through walls with their cameras?

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f58/see-through-walls-29826/


My personal image for marketing the fact that I can see through walls....