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

[superchuck500]

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.

I don't think that's necessarily an exclusively equitable question. It really comes down to the legal standard of performance - which I'm sure varies by state.

 

[St. Geezy]

Did I mention getting on the roof? Lmao. What's wrong with going into the attic? That would determine if indeed the roof is sagging no? And as a home inspector it's their job to go through every component of the house to assure there's no significant damage.

OP post pics of this sag so we can tell you if this is something easily missed or if it was neglible.

Here's a thing though. The home inspector was there, wife pointed out a flaw. He said no worries. Before you closed on it, why didn't you look into it further?

I asked the question about the attic and never got an answer from the OP. So I just figured that the damage wasn't over attic space.

With that said, you're not 100% right about an inspector's job. Yes, it is his job to go through every component of a home, the caveat is that it is every "immediately visible" component (in Louisiana). They literally aren't even supposed to pick up a door mat to see if there are any cracks in a floor.

I think you're mistaken on the value/expectations of a mere $400 or so home inspection. If they did everything you seem to expect and were liable for the things you seem to expect, the cost would be significantly greater.

 

[St. Widge]

I don't think that's necessarily an exclusively equitable question. It really comes down to the legal standard of performance - which I'm sure varies by state.

I was talking about the idea that he should get a refund because he could have missed other stuff. I'm not aware of any laws anywhere that would allow for that. It seems to be a request for Equity not law since if the inspector is liable by falling below the standard of care, the remedy would be to pay for damages, not to have the cost of the inspection refunded. That is unless the claim was for breach of contract.

And it also comes down to what he waived in any waiver that he likely signed.

 

[St. Widge]

Did I mention getting on the roof? Lmao. What's wrong with going into the attic? That would determine if indeed the roof is sagging no? And as a home inspector it's their job to go through every component of the house to assure there's no significant damage.

No, they only have to go to accessible portions of the house and I think, at least in Louisiana, that there is no requirement that they get on the roof. Although, the better inspectors do that.

And, the truth is that although the home inspection has some use to the seller in negotiating the price of the house or getting closing costs paid by the seller, he is really there to protect the lender. And, what the lender really cares about is that there isn't some huge problem with the house that would drop the value of the house below the amount of the mortgage.

And, the reason that Inspectors get so much protection is because if they didn't, nobody would become an inspector because they would constantly be sued.

 

[wizard1183]

I asked the question about the attic and never got an answer from the OP. So I just figured that the damage wasn't over attic space.

With that said, you're not 100% right about an inspector's job. Yes, it is his job to go through every component of a home, the caveat is that it is every "immediately visible" component (in Louisiana). They literally aren't even supposed to pick up a door mat to see if there are any cracks in a floor.

I think you're mistaken on the value/expectations of a mere $400 or so home inspection. If they did everything you seem to expect and were liable for the things you seem to expect, the cost would be significantly greater.

May be I am mistaken. Ill note it that when I buy or build a home, ill do my own inspection rather than hire some jack leg who could careless about the home since its minimal responsibility for him and I can save myself the $3-500 for one.

 

[St. Geezy]

May be I am mistaken. Ill note it that when I buy or build a home, ill do my own inspection rather than hire some jack leg who could careless about the home since its minimal responsibility for him and I can save myself the $3-500 for one.

I wouldn't do that, but that's up to you. They're a pretty valuable tool. There's plenty of stuff that even a subpar home inspector would find that you wouldn't find, especially in regards to electrical components.They're also very good for creating some last minute leverage for the home buyer to renegotiate or ask for repairs. And a home inspection is definitely good for some peace of mind in that there wasn't something significant found (something that's easily visible to a trained inspector).

Keep in mind, something "easily visible to a trained inspector" isn't something that is easily visible to the average home buyer.

And depending on the type of loan product you go for, the inspection by a licensed professional may be required. I know the government backed-FHA loans not only require inspections, but they also have a list of mandatory items that must pass inspection.

 

[superchuck500]

I was talking about the idea that he should get a refund because he could have missed other stuff. I'm not aware of any laws anywhere that would allow for that. It seems to be a request for Equity not law since if the inspector is liable by falling below the standard of care, the remedy would be to pay for damages, not to have the cost of the inspection refunded. That is unless the claim was for breach of contract.

And it also comes down to what he waived in any waiver that he likely signed.

I think it all sounds in contract. But I see what you meant by equity.

 

[El Caliente]

So the damage is on the roof. Maybe the wood is rotten. I am going to have a roofer come and take a look at it ASAP, and if I find out that its just a piece of wood that needs to be replaced then fine, I can suck up a couple $100, but if I am told that I need a new roof...courthouse away!

 

[Galbreath34]

It really seems like title insurance or homeowners should take care of the suing. Have you contacted either?

 

[superchuck500]

It really seems like title insurance or homeowners should take care of the suing. Have you contacted either?

I doubt it. Title insurance is for defects related to the legal title and all that goes with that - and homeowners is typically a casualty policy, meaning that there has to be some injury to the roof caused by an accident or covered event during the insured period.

Roof replacement due to decay or craftsmanship is typically not covered. Of course policies vary.

 

[Galbreath34]

Yeah, but the title should cover existing defects not revealed before the transaction, no? If there's rotted wood it isn't a defect that began after closing.

 

[buzd]

Yeah, but the title should cover existing defects not revealed before the transaction, no? If there's rotted wood it isn't a defect that began after closing.

Pretty sure not. Title insurance covers defects related to the title, ownership documentation, liens, etc, not physical defects.

 

[Galbreath34]

Ok, for some reason thought it handled the accuracy of disclosures. Luckily it never mattered on mine. I guess it only covers financial aspects not disclosed and the like.

 

[efil4stnias]

Well as an insurance agent for over 15 years and knowing that MANY litigated issues arise out of California (see EFIS, subcontracting liability ) I'm interested to see if this makes it to the inspectors CGL or E&O policy.

I know here in LA., that if claim was filed, the carrier would more than likely reach settlement vs. Court. But that has more to do with our laws and trial by jury stuff.

I would agree with most that holding the inspector to a standard that exceeds his expertise is incorrect. But without knowing anything regarding California law and his respective insurance policies(forms, exclusions etc) it would simply be a guess as to what would happen if his insurer recieved a claim.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2

 

[El Caliente]

I have contacted home warranty, and they don't cover this. I haven't contacted the title company, how does that work? Our deductible is $1500, so I hope this comes in under that. I am resigning myself to the fact that I will have to pay for this guys crap work out of pocket (good bye new floors), but if there is anything I have learned from this it's never take the realtors word, and to tell everyone I know who is buying a house not to use this guy.