Great court ruling for Texas inspectors.

[John Cahill]

Hot off the press. January 4, 2012. Appeals court rules Texas inspectors render opinions and are not subject to deceptive trades practices act (DTPA) treble damages. Will post PDF soon. It is too big to upload on forum.

[Bruce Thompson]

Sounds good!

[Michael R. Boyett]

Until John can get the pdf version posted you can view it online here.

[Russell J. Hensel]

I read most of it. But I think it sucks...a crappy inspector got away with screwing clients by misinforming them.

[Richard W. Washington]

Russell is dead on. The inspector should have done something to "make good". I don't view this a "victory".

[George Szontagh]

It would be nice to see the original report. Are files at the county level there accessible?

George Szontagh
TREC 2212
Newly minted InterNACHI member

[John Onofrey]

This is a great court ruling for inspectors and a lesson not to suggest what repairs should be made to remedy an observed deficiency.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by rhensel

I read most of it. But I think it sucks...a crappy inspector got away with screwing clients by misinforming them.

I would agree. Numerous screws loose and rotted wood in the attic.
It is a moisture condition alright.........just not the one stated in the report.


And, he ain't out of the woods yet:

As such, and in the interest of justice, we find that the appropriate remedy is to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial on the issue of negligent misrepresentation.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by evandeven

And, he ain't out of the woods yet:

The point people outside Texas may miss is the court ruled the inspector is not subject to Texas deceptive trade practices law. In Texas that is treble damages. Professionals are exempt from treble damages (Doctors, lawyers and surprisingly inspectors).

The court did rule the inspector could be pursued for other damages; just not treble damages.

Is there anyone who guarantees their inspection? Can we see the wording?

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by rwashington

Russell is dead on. The inspector should have done something to "make good". I don't view this a "victory".

I can go with this. What do you guarantee in writing for a $300 dollar fee?

[Russell J. Hensel]

What do I guarantee or what can I be sued for? For a fee of $300, I think I can be sued for anything I say and even more so, for things I don't say. The money has nothing to do with it, whether it be $300 or $30,000 it makes no difference.

I guess the question comes down to what do people expect for the fee. That is up to an SOP and contract. But to me people have paid me to perform a professional service to ascertain the conditions of their house, as they are at the time of the inspection. If that is blatantly disregarded or if signifiant visual items are missed you should be sued.

The inspector sucked and should be taken out of the profession, if my profession was put into the same arena as doctors in Florida then I would charge accordingly.

When inspectors sit back and realize people are sometimes using their life saving based on our decisions and inspections, they will see how serious this profession is no matter how high or low the fee is.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by jcahill

The point people outside Texas may miss is the court ruled the inspector is not subject to Texas deceptive trade practices law. In Texas that is treble damages. Professionals are exempt from treble damages (Doctors, lawyers and surprisingly inspectors).

The court did rule the inspector could be pursued for other damages; just not treble damages.

Is there anyone who guarantees their inspection? Can we see the wording?

There is no guarantee on anything.
Judging by the limited information, it appears the inspector either didn't see the issue or misinterpreted the issue.
In any event either intentionally or due to incompetence, he didn't fail the roof. He should be sued and lose.

[Aaron D. Miller]

Originally Posted by evandeven

There is no guarantee on anything.
Judging by the limited information, it appears the inspector either didn't see the issue or misinterpreted the issue.
In any event either intentionally or due to incompetence, he didn't fail the roof. He should be sued and lose.

Just exactly what did you wake up smoking this morning?

[Aaron D. Miller]

Originally Posted by jcahill

I can go with this. What do you guarantee in writing for a $300 dollar fee?

I guarantee all of my clients that there are NO guarantees in this life, especially from me for $300.

[Richard W. Washington]

Originally Posted by rhensel

What do I guarantee or what can I be sued for? For a fee of $300, I think I can be sued for anything I say and even more so, for things I don't say. The money has nothing to do with it, whether it be $300 or $30,000 it makes no difference.

I guess the question comes down to what do people expect for the fee. That is up to an SOP and contract. But to me people have paid me to perform a professional service to ascertain the conditions of their house, as they are at the time of the inspection. If that is blatantly disregarded or if signifiant visual items are missed you should be sued.

The inspector sucked and should be taken out of the profession, if my profession was put into the same arena as doctors in Florida then I would charge accordingly.

When inspectors sit back and realize people are sometimes using their life saving based on our decisions and inspections, they will see how serious this profession is no matter how high or low the fee is.

I like how you think.