Liability of providing MoveInCertified.com vs a regular inspection.

[acox]

As has been said several times, you can be sued by anyone, for anything, for any amount of money. That will not change whether you are doing buyer's inspections, seller's inspections, or whatever.
However, to be successfully sued, there must be causation, as Nick said. If your E&O carrier settles a lawsuit, then you're screwed when a lawsuit is filed, but if the suit is fought, it cannot be won without your action (or inaction) causing a damage.
Now, if you miss something on a seller's inspection, you may be guilty of doing your job badly, but I don't think a Home Inspector has been sued for Malpractice.
The real damage a buyer may claim if something is missed on a Buyer's inspection is that if they had known, they wouldn't have bought the house. In that case, you could be responsible for the house.
In a seller's inspection, the seller may claim damages, but what are they? Your fee.
The owner of the house is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the house. I just can't see how you are responsible for the lack thereof.
The buyer cannot successfully seek damages from you, because you had no duty to provide him anything.
I can see that a judge or jury may be sympathetic and award damages for cost of repairs or somehting, but I can't believe that would be likely.
The key to avoiding liabilty is, obviously, doing your best inspection on every inspection.

[Peter W. Bennett]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Jim asks:

The seller certifies that he isn't witholding information that he should disclose or lying about anything major.

This from www.MoveInCertified.com:



Put another way, rather than the inspector being on the hook to the buyer (his client) for everything he writes or doesn't write in the report (which actually includes major systems in need of immediate repair or replacement and know safety hazards anyway)... the seller is on the hook to the buyer (not a client of the inspector) for certifying that he/she isn't hiding anything or lying about anything that he/she knows.

MIC puts people and time between the inspector and the possibly aggrieved party.

Nick, just got the signs, stands, books and stuff. Can't wait to use them. Thanks.

In regards to "The seller certifies that he isn't witholding information that he should disclose or lying about anything major.", how is this physically done, i.e., a written document, or a verbal statement to the inspector?
I would like something from INACHI that would protect the inspector, and place some of the responsibility on the seller's shoulders.
A statement on a separate document, signed by the seller maybe the way to go, and some verbiage in the report should be included.
Thanks,
Peter

[Nick Gromicko]

Does your state use a seller's disclosure? Most do. If so, a signed one already exists.

[Captain Beefheart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Oh. Let me prove you wrong with a proof by extremes, a worst case scenerio:

Let's say you tell your client (the seller) that his roof is new when in fact it has to be totally replaced. Pretty worst case scenario, huh? Along comes the buyer's inspector (a competitor who hates you) and says "WTF? The first inspector is a goofball. This roof needs to be replaced!"

Now, had you been doing a regular inspection for the buyer and had you told the buyer the roof was new when in fact it had to be replaced, and he/she buys the home... guess what? Not only would you be liable, but the damages would have been a new roof! ($30,000).

However, in the MIC scenario, the buyer's inspector catches it while the buyer can still ask for a new roof or credit or walk or whatever... so even though you are just as liable, and even though you have just as much egg on your face for calling it incorrectly... guess what your damages are? ZERO, ZIP, NADA. The second inspector caught it for you in time.

In any legal case there is a liability phase and a damages phase.

So again, even in a worst case scenario, it is better to be WRONG and pay nothing than to be WRONG and pay $30,000.

Thank that competing inspector who hates you... he saved your butt.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear your trying to swindle the general public.

Beware of someone trying to blame or transfer liability to unsuspecting consumers.


I can't wait to inspect a "certified' house.


Beef

[Nick Gromicko]

Liability doesn't much matter when damages are zero. Think about it.

[Joe Farsetta]

Here in NY, the seller almost NEVER signs a dosclosure. Te reason goes directly to FRAUD, which is a criminal act. Failing to complete and sigh the disclosure carries a civil penalty of $500. Knowingly signing a false document is something else.

Once a seller is aware of adefect, they are obligated to disclose. They dont want to ne notified, which is why MIC has failed in our particular area.

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe writes:

Once a seller is aware of a defect, they are obligated to disclose.

True everywhere, not just NY.

[rbibler]

We do have a few inspectors out our way that if they have the chance to make another inspector look bad they will. Thats point # 1
Point # 2 If you send out 10 inspectors each one will find something the others did not see. lets get real.

But all this is just part of the job. Just Do you best.

I think this is a great idea MIC. I'm looking forward to getting started.

Best

Ron

[dschultz]

I thought that the preinspection paperwork states that we are ONLY liable up to the
cost of the inspection . $500 max lets say.
I thought worst case scenerio was to give the cost of the inspection back...
that's it and walk away clean...that's what the agreement states.
Please tell me if I am wrong, because that is how I read it.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by dschultz

I thought that the preinspection paperwork states that we are ONLY liable up to the
cost of the inspection . $500 max lets say.
I thought worst case scenerio was to give the cost of the inspection back...
that's it and walk away clean...that's what the agreement states.
Please tell me if I am wrong, because that is how I read it.

It all depends on if that's the way the judge reads it.

[David A. Andersen]

I thought that the preinspection paperwork states that we are ONLY liable up to the
cost of the inspection . $500 max lets say.

I highly recommend that you leave that perception at the door!