I will not be able to attend the meeting on the 28th as I am already booked. However, I want my view on SB 627 to be heard.

I certainly believe that something needs to be done to better protect the public from negligent home inspectors. Home inspectors that breeze through a home because of the limit of liability clause, home inspectors that, in reality do not have the experience or knowledge that is necessary to conduct a proper home inspection.

Last month I conducted a home inspection on a property that the seller owned for only six months. They hired a licensed home inspector to protect their interest, which was a wise decision. Unfortunately, that inspector is one that breezes through a home.

After I conducted my inspection and delivered my findings. I was informed by my client that the sellers provided him with their six-month-old inspection report. He was in disbelief of the issues I discovered. In fact, his statement was and I quote “Why in the hell didn’t (home inspectors name) find these issues. I am so glad I decided to hire you”.

This is one icident of many I have encountered. Inspectors such as this give the profession a bad reputation and every inspector that has posted here knows that one inspector. 

Home inspectors cannot predict the future, we cannot state how long an HVAC system, water heater, cook stove or refrigerator will continue to operate. However, in this case, that inspector clearly did not point out serious electrical and structural issues that were clearly and visibly apparent six months prior to my inspection.

1. The attic had a light box, but no fixture. The service wire was energized when the switch was activated and it was clear that a fixture had never been installed.
2. GFCI outlets were improperly wired.
3. Cracked/split floor joist that clearly was present six months prior to my inspection.

I estimate the cost to the seller to be between 3-5 thousand dollars. The first home inspector should be responsible for the repairs as they were not listed in his report, but is was clearly obvious that they were readily visible and present when he conducted the inspection.The current regulations only require that he refund his inspection fee. The lack of action by this inspector left the customer footing the bill for something they hired him to find.

The wording of SB 627 however makes an open door for a client buyer or seller to file suit for any issue at any time.

"No contract for home inspection services shall contain any provision limiting the liability of any home inspector for damages arising from his acts or limiting any business that provides home inspection services from liability for the acts of its employees or agents."

Home inspectors cannot have a limitless contract. We will be forced to pay for appliances and heating and air conditioning systems that simply fail due to age. Yet the consumer needs a path of recourse especially given the above incident. At what point does the home inspectors liability end? What is the maximum dollar amount of that liability?

This is my solution; it provides a level of protection for the inspector against frivolous law suits and provides protection for the clients against breeze through home inspectors.

No contract for home inspection services shall contain any provision limiting the liability of any home inspector for omitting visibly obvious material defects that exceed (?dollar amount?). The customer/client must prove within 30 days of closing, by evaluation of two equally qualified home inspectors that the material defect was visible and obviously present at the time of the original inspection.

Additionally all home inspectors should be carriing a minimum of 250,000 E&O insurance. Currently the requirement is GL only.

Thank you