What to do when an inspector misses stuff? (1 Viewer)

[St. Geezy]

For the sake of argument, if I am defending the inspectors against the allegations you state- I would argue that you knew about the roof issue, as the wife did indeed spot it. You were fully able to seek an expert roofing opinion rather than to rely on the general inspector's comments that it wasn't a big deal. The job of the inspector is to indentify problems and while the inspector's evaluation may have proven to be inaccurate, you were not justified in relying on it when you were aware of the problem independently and chose no further analysis by an expert.

Not saying that's the right result but that its not as easy as you're suggesting. I don't think your analogy to the industrial inspector is quite on-point.

This was my thinking as well. The home inspector should have recommened a licensed roofer come take a look at it. The fact that he did not do that probably does not make him liable though, as the buyer could have done that on their own, since they saw the defect.

 

[St. Geezy]

I realize that inspectors are diff but ALL of them are liable for things to a certain degree. Especially contractors. Home inspectors are not hired to do bum jobs and the fact is he did a bum job if he was hired to do a full home inspection therefore held liable. I posted the diff between an evaluation and a home inspector and it states a home insp carries a $300k policy for a miss. They don't carry that for no reason. If he was to do a full inspection he IS liable since he failed to catch the sagging roof. That's why I mentioned to seek counsel.

The inspector can only look at immediately visible defects. What he would have had to do to know the full scope of this issue was "dig into" the roof, I.E. remove shingles, etc. in order to see the rotted wood. - that's not a home inspectors job and in most states, doing that is against the rules.

The $300k "miss" policy is for situations such as - Inspector says A.C. unit is fine, A.C. clunks out 2 days after sale due to easily visible bad wiring/parts OR inspector says all outlets are grounded, house catches fire, and it is revealed that all outlets aren't grounded and they were the cause of the fire.

An inspector cannot know the full scope of roof damage, rotted wood, etc. because he cannot dig into that.

If he was to do a full inspection he IS liable since he failed to catch the sagging roof.

He didn't fail to catch it. It got pointed out to him and both parties were aware of it. What the buyers do with that information is up to them.

As I said before, if I see roof dicoloration, I know it didn't just get there for no reason at all and that there is a leak of some sort. With all due respect to the O.P., just because he was a novice at this does not mean that liability for the bad assesment of the severity should fall on the inspector. He should have investigated it further. While it would have been nice for the inspector to say to have a licensed roofer come take a look at it, his opinions on the severity of it does not constitute a warranty of any sort.

 

[SaintShane]

What did the inspectors report state specifically about the roof. There would normally be a roofing section. I'd be interested to see how he worded that section. If you can't load it here, take a screen cap pic and post it.

 

[St. Widge]

I realize that inspectors are diff but ALL of them are liable for things to a certain degree. Especially contractors. Home inspectors are not hired to do bum jobs and the fact is he did a bum job if he was hired to do a full home inspection therefore held liable. I posted the diff between an evaluation and a home inspector and it states a home insp carries a $300k policy for a miss. They don't carry that for no reason. If he was to do a full inspection he IS liable since he failed to catch the sagging roof. That's why I mentioned to seek counsel.

To a certain degree they can be held liable, but because of the contracts and laws around home inspections, that degree is very small for a home inspector.

 

[BHM]

Before going into full panic mode, get somebody out there to see what the repairs will cost. As mentioned, it might just take a tube of caulk for the roof and a gallon of paint for the ceiling. Or you may have a ton of rotted wood.

The seller must disclose any problems with the home. Does it look like they tried to paint over any damage?

 

[wizard1183]

To a certain degree they can be held liable, but because of the contracts and laws around home inspections, that degree is very small for a home inspector.

Well then, since liability is so small I might just become a home inspector as well for monetary purposes only. As you've stated I have nothing to worry about regardless of how well or poor of an inspection I do.

 

[superchuck500]

Well then, since liability is so small I might just become a home inspector as well for monetary purposes only. As you've stated I have nothing to worry about regardless of how well or poor of an inspection I do.

Obviously you're misstating the scope of liability - but even so, you still have to meet licensing requirements and just because you're not liable for money damages doesn't mean you can operate a business, much less a successful one.

But an inspector's job isn't really to guarantee to the home buyer that the house is defect-free (thus obligating the inspector to pay to rehabilitate any such defects). I think you should think about what that would mean if it were the reality - home inspections would cost significantly more, maybe to degrees of ten or more.

Do you really think a $500 home inspection should open the inspector to have to buy any defects that he misses? It just can't be that way. Inspectors are allowed to limit their liability in contract and they should be held to a standard of reasonable inspector - not error-free.

That's why it is really on the buyer to choose a well-regarded inspector and engage experts for any areas of concern.

 

[St. Widge]

Well then, since liability is so small I might just become a home inspector as well for monetary purposes only. As you've stated I have nothing to worry about regardless of how well or poor of an inspection I do.

That's not what I said.

 

[wizard1183]

Obviously you're misstating the scope of liability - but even so, you still have to meet licensing requirements and just because you're not liable for money damages doesn't mean you can operate a business, much less a successful one.

But an inspector's job isn't really to guarantee to the home buyer that the house is defect-free (thus obligating the inspector to pay to rehabilitate any such defects). I think you should think about what that would mean if it were the reality - home inspections would cost significantly more, maybe to degrees of ten.

Do you really think an $500 home inspection should open the inspector to have to buy any defects that he misses? It just can't be that way. Inspectors are allowed to limit their liability in contract and they should be held to a standard of reasonable inspector - not error-free.

That's why it is really on the buyer to choose a well-regarded inspector and engage experts for any areas of concern.

No I'm with you on this. I understand you can't guarantee anything. But a sag in a roof? Come on! Ray Charles can see that and this guys been TRAINED to see those things. That's the issue

 

[St. Geezy]

No I'm with you on this. I understand you can't guarantee anything. But a sag in a roof? Come on! Ray Charles can see that and this guys been TRAINED to see those things. That's the issue

He did see it; in fact, it was pointed out to him by the buyer.

 

[wizard1183]

He did see it; in fact, it was pointed out to him by the buyer.

Duh! The fact he neglected to look into it is what makes it unreasonable. At minimum he should get a refund from this ***** not knowing what the hell's wrong with roofs. What else did he miss if he can discount this?

 

[St. Widge]

No I'm with you on this. I understand you can't guarantee anything. But a sag in a roof? Come on! Ray Charles can see that and this guys been TRAINED to see those things. That's the issue

I didn't see a sag in the roof mentioned, but I could have missed it. But, it really depends on the fact if it was obvious or not. And there is the issue of is the roof was "accessible." The roof could have been too steep to get to. For instance, in Louisiana an inspector does not have to look under a raised house (and is not liable for things that can only be seen under the house) if the area under the raised house is not "accessible". "Accessible" is defined by the ability to lay on your back and do a full rotation to your stomach without hitting anything. That requires a pretty big space. There is also the issue, as Superchuck pointed out, that the buyer was aware of the potential issue.

So, while the possible liability of an inspector is very limited, it is there. It's the reason why those guys tend to spend a lot of money for E & O policies. Because when they are liable it tends to be for a lot of money.

 

[wizard1183]

That's not what I said.

That's what you were insinuating.

 

[St. Widge]

Duh! The fact he neglected to look into it is what makes it unreasonable. At minimum he should get a refund from this ***** not knowing what the hell's wrong with roofs. What else did he miss if he can discount this?

What you are talking about is an issue of Equity, not law. Law very rarely cares about Equity and the OP asked a question about law, not Equity.