72 comments
I would like to comment in favor of legislation similar to S.B. No. 627. The status quo in Virginia regarding the home inspection contingency is not acceptable. Legislative action would be very helpful. Home inspectors frequently have close relationships with sales agents and mortgage brokers. They know that if they identify a "deal breaker" defect in their report, the purchaser will likely back out, and the agent and broker will lose the value of their time invested for the sale of the property under contract. For that reason, home inspectors will downplay the significance of items requiring major repairs. In Virginia, the general rule is "buyer beware", which puts a special empasis on the home inspection process. Home inspectors routinely put language in their contracts that require arbitration of any disputes and limit any recovery to the amount paid for the home inspection service. This means that a purchaser could be saddled with a defect that requires $8000.00 in repairs and only have a remedy of $400.00.
I think that the text of the proposed S.B. 627 could be improved. The bill could be amended to clarify that the limitation of liability only applies to the actual "home inspection" activity and not for other acts or admissions for which a limitation of liability may be acceptable. It can also be clarified that it applies to the acts and ommissions.
I suspect that it will not make sense to ban such limitations on liability without doing something to establish a professional standard for home inspectors.
Senate Bill 627 is short-sighted, attempting to be punitive without understandign the home inspection process. A home inspector's job is to asses the phsycial condition and mechanical function of a given home on the day of the inspection with the additional limitation of hindered visibility; home inspectors cannot remove fixtures, insulation, wall coverings, floor coverings, etc.
The wording of Bill 627 makes it possible for home buyers to inappropraitely declare a home inspector to be negligent for conditions not yet present at the time of the inspection or which were not detectabe during the inspection.
The proposed bill shows a lack of understanding of how the home inspection process works, specifically the limitations home inspectors encounter. Any legislators thinking of supporting this bill should take the time to familiarize themselves with the home inspection process in person. No two houses are the same. No two inspections are the same. Thereofre, a one-size-fits-all change to the liability of home inspectors does not make sense.
- Joe Wingenbach, American Society of Home Inspectors - Northern Virginia Chapter
If Virginia Senate Bill 627 passes, I will probably close my home inspection business. I have never had any issues with the home inspections I have performed, but the risk to my business would be too great. I am certain that other home inspectors will feel the same way. Currently, people have a very difficult time finding qualified inspectors to do home inspections for them. If this bill passes, that difficulty may become an impossibility for many home buyers. How does not getting a home inspection help the people of this commonwealth? Clearly, it does not.
Lastly, I have yet to see the overwelming evidence that this is a problem. Why are our politicians trying to solve a problem that likely does not exist? It seems evident to me that something else is driving this other than a goal of protecting the consumer and supporting small businesses.
Good evening! I am against any legisltion that could be "twisted" and/or abused. The wording used in this bill does not specify anything, it is to vague. I am a home inspector and always assume any responisblty for damage directly caused by myself at/during an inspection. If limitations are added to me and my performace by a bill worded like this then I will not be able to provide a respectible service to my customers. Thank you for thinking about the normal and not passing a bill for the exception.
Virginia Senate Bill 627, in its proposed language, will have an unfavorable outcome for most every home buyer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The number of Home Inspection companies will be reduced because of the burden, risk and exposure associated with unlimited liability. The ensuing price for a Home Inspection will increase dramatically for several reasons: 1) Simply supply and demand – fewer Inspectors reduces supply and the demand likely will not decline given the current and expected real estate market conditions; 2) Increasing the price of the Home Inspection will allow the creation of a greater “war chest” in the event of legal action being taken by a buyer because of unlimited liability; and 3) Increasing the price of the Home Inspection will be necessary because insurance costs will significantly rise due to the degree of unlimited exposure.
Many private and public business entities have limitation of liability clauses in their contracts and typically are associated with or tied to the amount of the fees that are charged to provide defined services. Our Visual Inspection Agreements provide for the same type of limitation. Why then is our business being regulated to such an extent when these are normal business practices?
Our role is to be a generalist. We don’t have a crystal ball to determine when an appliance will fail, a roof will leak or a basement flood due. Our service is delivered via a brief moment in time – and that is the time where we are visually evaluating a home. We are prohibited from performing invasive or intrusive measures, so if something is lurking behind a wall or poor construction techniques were employed but not visible, how could a Home Inspector be liable for latent defects?
I am a licensed Home Inspector and ASHI Certified. I operate a small business in the Northern Virginia region and my team performs nearly 600 Home Inspections annually. I carry $1M in E&O and General Liability Insurance. Not once in 6 years have we had any situation requiring the involvement of our insurance carrier.
Integrity, truth and accuracy combine to make the Home Inspection business a truly professional service oriented industry.
Please consider the detrimental effect the Virginia Senate Bill 627 in its current form and language will have on your constituents.
Respectfully yours,
Kevin Dougherty
Most issues with home inspector liability are not due to the inspector being negligent or in any way remiss in his duty. Instead, they are typically due to latent defects that exist in a house that cannot be detected during a visual inspection for a number of reasons, and the defect only becomes apparent later due to changing conditions. Even though their should be no liability in these cases, people pursue them anyway and the inspector then needs to fight an uphill battle trying to prove, long after the initial inspection, that the defect could not have reasonably been detected during the visual inspection.
Being able to hold an inspector liable for an unlimited dollar amount for a perceived mistake in a service that typically only costs $300-500 already happens. However, our limitation of liability in inspection agreements mitigates this to a degree. Lifting our ability to limit liability will do tremendous damage to the industry for a number of reasons
- The number of claims against home inspectors will rise significantly. When people are on the hook for expensive repairs, regardless whether or not an inspector may be at fault, some will chase wherever the money is. In legitimate cases currently, inspectors can be and often are held liable for more than their contract states. Once word gets out that the limitations of liability are lifted, it doesn't take a detailed study to figure out that the number of claims, especially illegitimate ones, will rise.
- Insurance costs will skyrcoket. They are high already. This will push low volume inspectors out of the industry as well as inspectors that don't want to handle the extra liability.
- Home inspection fees will skyrocket. Few inspectors will absorb the higher insurance costs and take on the extra liability without passing those very real costs directly to home buyers.
- Fewer home buyers will get home inspections. With higher home inspection fees, many buyers will forgo having an inspection in the first place. This in turn will leave these buyers much more susceptible to inheriting major problems in a home purchase, which will cost them far more in the long run than the inspection fee would have been. Also, because higher fees will likely push out a disproportionate number of lower income buyers, such as those getting FHA or VA loans, lower income and minority buyers will be more prone to future major home expenses.
- Realtor liability will likely increase. Most home inspector insurance policies provide agent idemnity. With fewer people purchasing inspections due to increased cost, agents will be idemnified from house problems less often. Those chasing after the money that have no home inspector to go after will instead target the next representative with insurance, the Realtor.
- More increased cost to consumers as inspectors will far more often recommend specialist inspections to mitigate liability for those respective systems.
- To better defend against frivolous claims, inspectors may start reducing inspection quality by adhering only to required components of the Standards of Practice, and including and adhering to clear language in inspection agreements that the inspector will only inspect mandatory systems and nothing more.
It is surprising to me that I have to draft a letter as to why this proposal is completely damaging to real estate transactions, the future home buyers and the hard working professional home inspectors. It is amazingly clear how wrong this proposal will be to the entire industry. To open up our liability for items that may arise after our inspection that were not visible the day of our visit and to require us to carry the liability for items that were either outside the scope of the state regulated home inspection or were undetectable just doesn't make sense. Limiting our liability as it states currently is the best way to ensure no frivolous lawsuits or claims arising because a home buyer decides that they aren't responsible for the costs that come with home ownership. For example, no homeowner wants to pay for a new HVAC unit that stops working properly 6 months after moving in but was working properly the day of the inspection. They feel someone should pay other than them and this is exactly the reason why we need to keep the protections in place for the home inspector. Unfortunately, systems break down, water entry occurs out of the blue from a storm, etc.. These are situations that come with home ownership. If you eliminate the liabilty protection from the home inspection contract, the home inspectors' liability insurance will become too cost prohibitive to afford and prices will therefore rise to cover this expense. There will be less home inspectors willing to conduct inspections when the opportunity for catastrophic liability and lawsuits will put them out of business. We are supposed to be getting rid of regulations in this country, not adding more. The majority of home inspectors do an honest and thorough inspection for their clients. The ones that are careless and do not perform a thorough inspection will be eliminated from the industry via word of mouth either from Realtors or social media. The government has no right to damage an entire industry for a few bad eggs.
We opine that a home inspection contract is a voluntary business agreement between two parties of which the Commonwealth should restrain itself from undue influence or intervention in the interest of promoting commerce and affordable housing. While the home inpector's professionalism and conduct are, and should remain, the purview of DPOR, this proposed legislation would create an undue burden to commerce--specifically, it dramatically encumbers one of the main residential purchasing agreement contingencies (the inspection clause) necessary to consummate a residential real estate transaction. We point out that no other adjacent state has this regulation, and only Delaware (having also recently adopted formal licensure for its home inspectors) requires Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance for its inspectors. Based on our experiences in three states--MD, VA, and DE--we assess that placing an "unlimited" liability on the home inspector will create a significant barrier to entry to those building trades professionals who might otherwise consider licensure. Additionally, the business structure sought by the remaining home inspectors will most likely gravitate to those forms, such as LLCs, that will make any attempt to leverage the intended protections and the positive potential for damage compensation afforded by this Bill, should it become law, minimally rewarding for the plaintiff. Our response to this legislation, if enacted, will be to avoid inspections on "risky" properties, such as those built before 1978 or during phases in building construction that introduced such defects as unbonded CSST, galvanized plumbing supply lines, aluminum wiring, lead-based paint, asbestos insulation and tile, etc. This action, if adopted by our colleagues, will result in fewer available, experienced inspectors for the potential purchasers of these less favorable, aged properties--lower income and first-time homebuyers. Of those remaining inspectors that are available, they will be forced to raise their prices to cover the additional cost of E&O coverage, additional filing/recordation, extra accountancy burdens, etc. that will be required to defend against inevitable misguided or frivolous claims and to stay in business--again, unintentionally creating an additional financial burden for the purchaser (who typically pays for the inspection). For example, the cost of mandating E&O coverage for home inspectors as a condition of licensure raised our cost for home inspections in Delaware by over 30 percent, and, we rejected much more work than we accepted as a result of the potential risks associated with VISUALLY inspecting many older homes. If the Commonwealth decides to go forward with this legislation, we highly recommend that it be amended to provide a provision for a non-profit housing assistance organization's exemption--they will be the only ones in a viable position to provide inspections for the already underserved low-income and first-time homebuyer citizens this well intentioned, but woefully misguided law seeks to protect.
Greetings,
I'd like to point out a few possible pitfalls that I see with the proposed legislation in SB 627. First, it appears to be too broad and vague; it simply strips the contractual liability limit protections from the home inspection profession outright, and in such a manner that exposes the home inspection profession to the potential for frivolous or unscrupulous lawsuits.
Second, the proposed legislative change fails to recognize the very nature of a home inspection. Namely, it is a visual inspection of the house and related systems, and inspectors are actually forbidden to conduct the type of probative activities that would detect latent or intentionally concealed defects. As such, a home inspection and its related report are a snapshot in time, akin to a balance sheet statement, and the inspector cannot speculate, predict or determine when any particular system might fail in the future, but can only comment upon what he or she can observe during the time of inspection.
Next, consider the effects this proposed change could have with regard to creating an environment of frivolous or unscrupulous litigation. As it stands now, a home inspector ordinarily carries E&O insurance, typically with $1 million in coverage. If an inspector truly does miss a finding that results in significant financial harm, a homeowner can certainly litigate, and if it is determined that there was genuine negligence, the possibility of a judgment is real. With this proposed change, the incidence of litigation will undoubtedly increase, along with almost certain increases in cost for said insurance.
The legislature prudently revised the code in July of 2017 when it required home inspectors to be licensed through DPOR. Doing so created a minimum level of knowledge and proficiency and undoubtedly increased the standard of service for all home buyers in the Commonwealth. However the same cannot be said for this proposed legislative change. This appears to only increase the potential costs and risks for home inspectors, without providing any increase to the level of service that home buyers can expect. I urge you to reconsider.
Warm regards,
Charles Aulino
I am writing to oppose SB 627 as it will open the door for more frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable demands from disgruntled clients. It will also cause inspection prices to skyrocket to cover the increased insurance rates.
Re: Senate Bill 627:
I have recently been made aware of Senate Bill 627 which is attempting to further regulate the home inspection industry in Virgina. In the last year Virgina has adopted a licensing requirement for home inspectors in Virginia, which was a positive step in protecting consumers.
The Senate Bill 627 is attempting to require home inspectors to remove any limit of liability in our contracts with consumers. A Virginia licensed home inspection is defined as a limited evaluation of a home, as a home inspection is only a visual inspection. The limits of the inspection process are outlined in the consumer contract, as is required by DPOR.
The home inspection process is designed to educate consumers about their property and to alert them to potential issues. A home inspection cannot limit all of the risk an individual takes when buying a property. Bill 627 would remove the home inspectors limit of liability opening the industry to limitless litigation.
Senator Surovell introduced this legislation after a constituent had a bad experience during the home inspection process. The passing of this legislation would affect an entire industry when there does not appear to be any widespread problem that needs repair.
Please do not support Bill 627.
As Licensed Home Inpectors know, home inspections are a visual inspection for the most part. A home that is occupied that is filled with all the homeowners furniture and miscellaneous goods pose a huge problem in visually inspecting every inch on the property! one example on an issue that could happen is that if a buyer decides to do some renovations after purchasing a home you inspected and finds asbestos behind the vinyl siding could call you out on not advising them on it's presents or the cut ceiling joist hidden by the attic insulation. This bill is opening us Licensed Home Inspectors up for many lawsuits which at some point it will run this type of business in the ground or make so the average home buyer can nor afford to hire us.
I am writing as a Virginia licensed home inspector in opposition to SB 267. If passed, this legislation will dramatically increase a home inspector's liability by making inspectors liable for items that exceed the American Society of Home Inspectors Standard of Practice, for issues reaching beyond our intended scope and purpose. As a Certified Home Inspector with the American Society of Home Inspectors, I subscribe to the ASHI Standard of Practice. Home inspectors are generalists tasked with identifying visually observable defects and inoperative systems by use of normal operating controls. Our mission has never been to perform technically exhaustive inspections, destructive testing, or to estimate the adequacy of or the estimated remaining life expectancy of any system or component. The inspection, which is a visual inspection, includes readily accessible areas and components. It is out of the scope of our Standard of Practice to perform any destructive testing to ascertain if a problem exists. Additionally, Inspectors are restricted by home sellers as sellers do not want their properties damaged by inspectors looking for potential problems. Inspectors are also restricted by their liability insurance policies from performing destructive testing and we stand the chance of loosing our insurance coverage if we do.
Licensed, qualified home inspectors provide a valuable service to the first time and experienced homebuyer. Inspectors possess a general knowledge of homes and their components and provide an affordable consulting service and general knowledge base to the layperson buyer. This service provides the homebuyer with the information necessary to make and educated purchasing decision. This legislation will likely reduce the number of qualified home inspectors willing to perform inspections and in turn, will likely result in higher inspection fees for homebuyers, neither of which are in the best interest of the home buying public.
The proposed bill is BAD for Virginia, BAD for consumers, BAD for home inspectors and BAD for the Virginia real estate industry. As a home inspector serving Maryland, DC and Virginia for the past 8 years and part of a InterNachi brotherhood of home inspectors we work to protect home buyers with a non evasive visual inspection. The proposed legislation will open the flood gates for frivoluos claims and increase inspection costs to the consumer because of higher insurance premiums and costs related to doing business in Virginia. It may cause consumers to forgo an inspection because of the higher costs which harms us all. Home inspectors provide a valuable service to their customers and the community at fair and reasonable pricing and goverment regulatory agencies are becoming more involved with commerce without thinking of the consequences. This is a bad bill that needs a resounding NO.
This bill is trying to make Home Inspectors responsible for anything found wrong with the home when Home Inspectors only do a visual inspection. If a Home Inspector does not report something there are already means to make them liable through the court of law. This bill is trying to make Home Inspectors responsible for all issues. This will only cause a negative domino effect. Ending with less Home Inspectors and much higher rates but the need for a Home Inspector will not change. I am strongly against this bill.
Greetings to all fellow home inspectors.
I've been doing home inspections for 25 years in Northern Virgina, and have often felt the service home inspectors provided was undervalued. I doubt anyone could coordinate the circus of contractors necessary to produce the results of a single home inspector. Afterall, you would need a framer, an electrician, a plumber, an HVAC tech, a roofer, possibly a water proofer, and likely a remodeler, all on the same day, without an agenda to sell you something, and for a reasonable fee. Imagine that, and realize that none of those contractors is going to take the time to explain how the house works, the educational component of a home inspection. Now VA Senator Surovell wants me to provide this undervalued service, with unlimited liability to my company, with SB627. Please, Senator Surovell, tell me where I can find those magic glasses to see thru walls, and the crystal ball to predict the future, because without those, if your bill passes, I will no longer be able to afford to provide my undervalued service.
Respectfully,
Tim Hockenberry
Home Facts Inc.
(703) 244-0092
The Bill SB 627 will be very harmful to the Home Inspection industry in this state. It will likely raise insurance cost to a prohibitive level and make entering the profession more difficult. This will reduce the number of inspectors and raise the cost of the home inspection service. Home inspections may become too expensive for all but the most affluent. This will not protect the general public. It will harm first time home buyers the most, who need the information about the home the most.
Please do not let this bill continue!
Seth Hurlbert
I am writing to state my opposition to SB627. Home inspections are non-invasive and are not engineering or code inspections. A home inspector can only report on what he or she can see.
A complete removal of liability limitations in home inspection contracts would unfairly penalize home inspectors, expose them to frivolous lawsuits, and raise the cost of home inspections.
The SB627 to have the statement of "limit of liability" removed from the home inspection agreement will have significant impact on the availiblity of home inspections for the consumer. Presntly our cost of E&O insurance is over $3000 per year and the insurance requires our agreement to have that statement in our agreement, If that statement is removed the industry may not insure us or the cost may go up dramatically to cover the liability or inspectors may decide it is not worth the risk. This would increase the costs and limit availablity of inspectors
As Virginia is very pro business, this seems to be a very selective anti-business measure, with all of the abitration clauses that are allowed in business agremeents this one is going after the very small business. Even with the clause home inspection companys are still sued and settled with the E&O insurance if it is a legitimate claim.
As an inspector we have 2-4 hours to go through a home, we have to deal with personally belongings concealing walls in many locations, we deal with vacant homes that water has been turned off so issues are not present during th einspoection and may appear after wate ris turned on for a longer time. We deal with owners that have concealed the issues with paint or other coverings.
As inspectors we inspect a home on a set date, then the buyers move in and something fails, are we to be responsible for mechanical failures after we inspect the home. Just this week my compressor failed on my AC unit, it cost me $1200 to repair it, the unit is less than 3 years old. Would I as an inspector be responsible for that failure if it happend right after the buyers moved in.
As inspectors we test for wet basements, the basement is dry during the inspection, no visual sign of past water damage, after this past 2 weeks of extremely heavy rains, a basement gets wet, are we responible for the wet basement
These are examples of issues that with the clause of "Limited Liability" does not become a issue, with out this clause it may have to be defended against
The attempt to prevent limits of liability statements in home inspection contracts is unacceptable. Simply put, I cannot name a legal business, or government agency for that matter, that does not have either a diclaimer, waiver, terms and conditions, or limits of liability statements supporting their operation. I recommend not going forward with this legislation becasue, the overall time and cost for a home inspection would undoubtedly increase. That would hurt homebuyers, sellers, realty professionals and the overall economy of Virginia.
SB 627 will effectively increase insurance costs for home inspectors and drive a number of inspectors out of business. New licensing requirements (July 1, 2017) already are reducing the number of newcomers into the business producing an aging work force. An aging workforce will opt to quit rather than defend frivolous lawsuits and risk any accumulated wealth. They will be frivolous because opinions rather than knowledge will rule actions. Lawyers will encourage this. To protect themselves, home inspectors will need to increase their on-site time many fold. And report preparation time and length will increase accordingly. Increased costs and lesser competitive pricing will be passed on to consumers. Well-heeled buyers won't be hurt but average ones will...probably opting to forego an inspection. The homes they can afford are the ones most likely to need work...work a home inspection highlights. This bill is an anti-consumer bill. Furthermore, it is redundant. There are other laws in effect that counter limited liability clauses, particularly in fraud or intent to harm scenarios. In reality, regardless what a contract says, a suit can be made. The only winners are lawyers. Limited liability clauses promote careful consideration before suing. If the government must do something, consider requiring E&O insurance as well as general liability. Also, consider requiring Workman's Compensation. Home inspectors can fall off roofs, through ceilings and get electrocuted in crawlspaces as well as electric panels. Without Workman's Compensation the seller is liable. Why aren't the Senators protecting them.
I've read through all the 22 comments. There is one that is pro SB 627 from John C. Cowherd, PLC. He makes two major points which need addressing. The first, the close relationships between inspectors and real estate agents will tend to influence the degree to which an inspector emphasizes a problem. This downplay does in fact happen. Since 80% of all home inspections are referrals from real estate agents, to be successful home inspectors must court them. They don't hide problems and are not ill-intentioned, they're just not alarmists and in fact shouldn't be. We are considererd "the Deal killers", but then we are retired, cater to the remainder 20% and don't have to make a living doing home inspections.
Also, the courtship is done in more ways than soft-peddling a problem. Agents have to be at the inspection to open the house in Virginia. Imagine waiting 4 hours for a home inspection to be completed; thus, the 1 to1 1/2 hour inspection. I can't do an inspection (and there are two of us) in less than 2 1/2 hours...usually 4. Of course, we encourage buyers to walk around with us and question, question, question. Again, I remind you, we are retired and can afford to do this which we believe is very important. The educational component of a home inspection not addressed in the new regulation should be, but is not practical.
John's point is valid, but not via SB 627. A law banning real estate agents from recommending home inspectors in any way, shape or form (example: a list of three) should be passed. Massachuset has one, but it is the only state to my knowledge and it isn't even that clear.
John makes the point in support SB 627 to allow consumer actual damage protection. He is basically saying damage occurs because of the down play. Down play or emphasis is matter of opinion. It relies on grey interpretation. John's saying it is black and white. He's wrong.
Finally, he thinks we need to establish a professional standard for home inspectors. He obviously has never read the DPOR regulations which are greater for home inspectors than general contractors.
The home inspectors’ job is to provide the perspective home buyer enough information to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of a particular home. The home inspector provides a generalistic non destructive, inspection of accessible components of a home. Lists of all discovered deficiencies found during a home inspection are included in the inspection report. A home inspector will determine if a component is functioning as originally intended and will generally attempt to determine if the component is at or near the end of its typical life expectancy. A home inspector will never find all deficiencies in a home. Due to this, no warranty or guarantee is included or implied with a home inspection.
The term “damages”, whether real or perceived is very vague and could leave the home inspector liable and open to law suits for almost, if not every aspect of a home inspection. In an industry fraught with law suits, many frivolous, the home inspector needs some means of protection.
Joe Sorbello
Bricks and Sticks Home Inspections, LLC
Regarding SB 627
I am a licensed home inspector in Virginia, with 24 years experience in the building trades and another 22 years experience as a home inspector.
In my opinion, carrying errors and omissions insurance and general liability insurance is essential to protect myself and my clients from catastrophic loss. Many (most, or all) E&O carriers require a limit of liability in the inspection agreement to limit their exposure.
The limit of liability that all home inspectors include in their contracts allows us to offer inspections at an affordable cost. Prohibiting any limitation of liability will certainly increase the cost of home inspections, and it will probably increase the cost of an inspection beyond the reach of many consumers. It will undoubtedly limit the number of people who are willing to offer the service, because who can afford to be exposed to $500k of liability while charging only $600 for an inspection?
An opinion posted on this site that home inspectors are more interested in preserving the real estate transaction than providing accurate and complete inspection reports to their clients is about 25 years behind the times, and it ignores the fact that a Virginia inspector who fails to provide the required service puts his license and ability to earn a living at risk. Licensed inspectors have a powerful incentive to do the job properly, and they have no protection if they fail to do so.
As it stands now, a consumer has the option to sign my contract that includes a limit of liability, or to hire someone else. As it stands now, any licensed inspector can gain a competitive advantage over me by offering the service with no limit of liability (if he can afford to do so). SB 627 would eliminate these options and would replace them with home inspections that are beyond the reach of the very consumers who need them the most.
Bob Peek
Virginia license 3380000108
Virginia Senate Bill 627 will have an adverse effect on the Home Inspection Industry in Virginia causing many businesses to close because of the proposed legislation due do the risk and unreasonable burden associated with unlimited liability. Liability insurance costs will likely rise due to increased risk exposure. Small, one man, inspection companies will likely fold due to the increase cost of liability insurance. For the businesses that remain will be forced to raise prices due to these increases in insurance premiums if this bill is passed. Not only will this have a detrimental effect on home inspectors but also future home buyers in Virginia due to increased fees associated with purchasing a new home.
Most businesses have limitation of liability clauses in their contracts and are typically tied to the amount of fees that are charged to the services provided. The Inspection Agreements used by our company provide for the same limitations. Why is the Home Inspection Industry being unfairly regulated when other industries are allowed reasonable Limited Liability Clause in their contracts.
Home inspectors are generalists. We cannot be expected to predict when something in a home will fail in the future due to normal wear; such as a roof leak, a furnace or water heater failure, or a basement leak due to a future system failure. Many components in the home at the actual time of the inspection may be in working order but can fail over time due to normal wear. It is unjust to expect me or any other inspection to be liable to a judgement that is out of our control and unable to predict. The Home Inspection is a visual inspection at a certain given moment in time. The inspection isn't invasive, we can't open walls to see what lurks behind them, we can't completely dismantle a furnace to see the heat exchanger or see inside the duct work inside the wall. We can't see electrical wiring hidden by drywall. So if something is hidden behind a wall or floor, or poor construction was used but not visible, how can any human being such as a home inspector be held liable for latent defects.
I'm a licensed home inspector in the Commonwealth of Virginia and have always operated with honesty and integrity as do other home inspectors in Virginia.
I am not in favor of Virginia Senate Bill 627 and respectfully request that this bill be killed.
Sincerely,
Anthony Lane
Staunchly Opposed to SB 627
In a just and fair world this bill would protect home buyers from shady, unprofessional home inspectors and it would hold us honest inspectors to the fire. I agree that some sort of winnowing process is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff, but relying on our current legislative system in the state of Virginia is not a viable option.
For example, several years ago I was notified by a former client that I would be held responsible for water damages to a home I inspected more than 90 days prior. This client claimed that I started the washing machine in the basement and left it running after I vacated the premises. What actually happened, and was clearly pointed out in the inspection report, was that I found a slow leak at the clothes washer in the basement. The clothes washer was stopped and the slow leak stopped resulting in a small puddle on the concrete floor in front of the appliance. In this particular case the house was vacant, the home owner was out of state, the buyer’s Realtor unlocked the house for me and then left without my knowing it and the home buyer was not able to attend the inspection. My only contact with the home buyer and buyer’s agent was through email so I wrapped up the home inspection and emailed it to both within an hour. Twelve days later when the appraiser showed up from the bank he found standing water throughout the basement and a substantial amount of related damage. I was never contacted and the buyer’s agent convinced her that they should close on the house and draw up a lawsuit against me afterwards for compensation of repair costs. In court the judge ruled that the home buyer was responsible for damages since she closed on the purchase with full knowledge of the current condition of the house. However he turned towards me and said before the whole court, “now you know as well as I do that you are the one that is responsible for this and I wish that I could force you to cover the repair costs ... but in this case the law is the law.”
What happened was very unfortunate. Who is at fault? Is it the inspector, the Realtor, the home seller, the manufacturer of the clothes washing appliance? Poor decisions were made by several of the parties involved: I learned that I will never perform another home inspection without a licensed real estate agent present. I also now strongly encourage the homebuyer to be present for the entire inspection. I still inspect clothes washers but I know I am putting myself at risk in doing so. The homebuyer should never have taken the advice of the Realtor to close on the house with known damages. And the judge should have kept his opinions out of the courtroom. I lost faith in our legal system throughout this 9 month process. The hearing was rescheduled 3 times causing me to miss work those days and my lawyer fees and insurance fees could not be recouped because Virginia does not allow counter-suit.
A year later I was subpoenaed by a home seller who claimed I falsified my inspection report to thwart the sale of her home. She got statements from a plumber, electrician, class A contractor and HVAC specialist claiming that I made incorrect findings. Actually what I did is carefully, and in a very detailed fashion, inform the potential home buyer about the hazards associated with various major systems and components in the home. After more than 3 courtroom appearances and more than $6000 in legal fees, the judge decided to throw the case out because there was never a contract between myself and the home seller in the first place.
This illustrates how we home inspectors are already at a disadvantage and to take away the only thing that could legally provide us any reprieve is a death sentence. Our legal system is not just and a limitation of liability is necessary to keep these inevitable disputes in small claims court. These were very stressful events for me that caused me to question my faith and motives and I was ready to leave the home inspection industry at any point. But if I now could lose my business because someone felt I was to blame for something I am not responsible for, then as others have already said in these threads I too will have to significantly raise my fees, say “no” to as many as 50% of inspection requests and I’ll likely loose all joy in providing such a necessary service to those who really need us.
Strike down this bill please!
Stephen Comer, ASHI Certified Inspector, C’ville Home Inspection
This bill is outragous. This leaves an open door for every inspector to be liable for items out of our control, and allows the buyer to expect payment for every little thing they find in thier opinion. This will also kill our industry, businesses, lively hood of all inspectors. This will also make our operating expences rise to the point the clients will be suffering, cost of inspection will have to double. As a business owner I can see my expences double or even tripple, my libility exposure will increas, which will force me to let go of my staff.
I feel the system is working fine as it is. My thougth is, if this is to protect the buyer, then thier should be a mandatory level of insurance required for home inspectors to carry. This will protect the consumer for errors and mistakes.
By nature, vision and scope is limited during a home inspection and therefore liability should also continue to be limted.
There are numerous reasons why vision and scope is limited during a home inspection: 1. Personal possessions and furniture in occupied homes. 2. Latent defects that only occur under certain conditions that cannot be observed at the time of inspection 3. Concealed defects that are hidden behind finished materials such as drywall, carpet, insulation... 4. Intentional concealment of a known problem by a homeowner or contractor who has performed repairs 5. Limited accessibility to an area due to safety and or physical accessibility issues. 6. Limited specialization and licensing - i.e. a licensed home inspector is not a licensed electrician, licensed plumber, licensed hvac professional, licensed contractor etc...
A home inspector cannot see through furniture and walls and does not have X - Ray vision. A home inspection is not an MRI and should not be treated as such.
Sincerely,
Timothy Zenobia, ASHI Certified Inspector
Whether by intent or gross over sight, if passed, Bill 627 would strip every Inspector of any protection against issues outside of His/Her control putting them at great risk and possibly out of buisness.
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.
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
I am opposed to SB 627. There are many reasons this Bill not does not make sense. First and foremost, a Home Inspection is a Non-Invasive inspection. Meaning, the Inspector can not move the owner's belongings/items out of the way, the Inspector can not cut access into the walls to check for latent defects, etc. The visuals are limited; therefore, liability must also be limited.
I understand the thought behind the Bill, the desire to protect the Consumer. A Home Inspection is already providing an extra layer of protection for the Consumer. It is not meant to be, nor can it be, all enclusive. Should this Bill come to fruition, many Home Inspectors will leave the industry and cause the price of Home Inspections to rise, giving the Consumer less choice and less protection then they have now.
Dave Sfreddo - InspectionsVA.com
Unlimited liability? I can't imagine any profession that has an unlimited liability.
If our standards are to change, lets discuss it and create a new standards of operation for the state through ASHI and the powers that be. If our costs and fees change because of those changes, we will adapt eventually. I imagine the cost of an inspection will change considerably as will out insurance costs. Realtors will need to understand that an inspection ( with unlimited liability) could take 6 to 8 hours. Some large old homes could take more than one day.
I hope the technology to see through walls and predict the future are available very soon so that we can understand the cost and pass that on to the buyers.
I expect this bill is a knee jerk reaction to a poor inspection and will be treated as such.
I have purchased homes and have had home inspections performed. The inspectors I have had, have always tried there best to report the condition of the home and it is easy to understand some things cannot be seen. It is also understood that the buyer must assume some degree of risk when purchasing a home...that is stated in various language throughout the real estate documents we sign. A home is not a brand new car with a manufacturer warranty. And even new homes with warranties have issues...and often a warranty for only 1 year, sometimes less...
If a home inspection company has to assume full liability as a result of this Senate Bill 627, I can easily see the following happen when a homebuyer wants to have an inspection.
1. The inspection is going to take approximately 6-8 hours to complete and will cost an average of $1000 (condo) - $1600 (single Family)...maybe even more.
2. The inspection process will no longer be just one individual, but will include a licensed home inspector, a licensed electrician, a licensed plumber, a licensed roofer, a chimney specialist, a pest inspector and a structural engineer. These professionals will work side by side throughout the course of the entire day to uncover every single flaw within your home...because if they don't they are liable to unlimited ends.
3. In addition to the above listed professionals, a thermal imaging scan will need to be performed of every interior and exterior component.
4. An indoor air quality test in every single room will be necessary to ensure there are no unseen health hazards in the air, such as mold.
Radon tests will still be extra, as always.
All personal posessions will preferably be vacated from the property being inspected in order to ensure the inspectors can see everything. If posessions are present then there will be another clause the inspector has you sign somehow changing the terms...So homes on the market that are occupied will sit on the market longer as home buyers prefer the vacant homes.
The above items may sound extreme or unlikely....but the reality is that the cost of inspections for home buyers will rise as companies endeavor to provide a greater level of invasive and specialized inspection for the clients. This in turn will result in many home owners opting out of a home inspection all together due to the costs. It will also result in many smaller companies or individual inspectors going out of business as they are not able to take on the associated liabilities and increased costs to stay in business.
Food for thought.
I am writing this statement in opposition to SB 627. I don't believe it is right that the Virginia Senate is going to submit this legislation in a way that will help anyone in the home inspection industry. The senate has to remember that we the inspectors have only one chance to inspect properties and that we don't know of any defects in advance in any of the properties that we do inspect. The only individual that knows what is wrong or broken in the property is the seller or at the time the owner. The owner/seller is the only one that knows if a window is broken and can't open or that the button on an oven is broken and will fall off when it is touched. By passing this legislation the senate will cause a major backlash with home inspectors getting out of the business (after we all just went through the licensing process and spent hundreds of dollars on training, books, and taking the exam.) If you want to pass this SB 627, then you better make legislation that makes it mandatory that home/property sellers get a pre sale inspection to identify what needs fixed before the buyers home inspector comes in and refuses to turn on any lights, equipment, HVAC systems, sinks, or showers. The other idea is to have the seller/owner be present at the inspection and they turn everything on, move items so we can get access to the electrical panel that is blocked with all of there belongings, open doors, operate windows, etc. Basically you will cause us home inspectors to do a cursory look around to see if a home is in good enough condition to buy, we will end up doing the seller a favor and not doing our client (the buyer) a good inspection which will cause the buyer to buy the house under false pretenses. This will be the demise of the home inspection industry here is Virginia. If SB 627 is passed the cost of performing inspections will go up increasingly higher, from a average cost of $450 up to about $750.00 for a $550K house. Say no to SB627
In response to the proposed legislation to hold home inspectors completely liable for any future claims resulting from a home inspection is absolutely agressious and will only create an atmosphere of hostility. No other inspection trade, including local and state inspectors are held to this level of liability. The result of this legislation will result in a drastic decline in home inspectors willing to assume this type of unlimited liability and exposure. We are already required to afford $250,000 in Liability insurance for an average $400 Inspection which will only serve to attract more lawsuit happy lawyers. A home inspection is based upon many physical limitations. Access to inaccessible spaces. Evaluation based upon current conditions which can change in an instant. Unforeseen conditions. Problems arising post an inspection. To add this kind of burden onto the shoulders of a inspector is not reasonable no more than it would be reasonable to require sellers to be held reasonable for warranting a home after the sale. Too often, situations arise where access is not possible or has been made inaccessible by the owner who has decided not to be present during an inspection, in an attempt to cover up a problem creating a problem for an inspector to perform a full inspection. Conditions which may exist below grade level are not disclosed by governing authorities which may impact the property. I became an inspector to offer over 40 years of industry wide knowledge with the hope it would prove to be a beneficial contribution to my clients. However, I will not stay in this profession if this type of legislation is passed. I would have to assume many other professionals will do the same.
I oppose SB 627 as it will encourage frivolous lawsuits, unreasonable demands from disgruntled clients, increase inspection cost, and increase insurance rates.
We oppose the present language of SB 627, but we are in favor of a modification to SB 627 that would eliminate some of the liability protections presently afforded by standard disclaimer agreements signed by customers of home inspection companies.
The notion that all liability for home inspectors is circumvented by said agreements, and that liability is valued equal to the inspection fee paid, and that this becomes law upon obtaining the signature of a somewhat pre-occupied customer is ludicrous.
Having said that, we believe that the liability should only be extended to serious circumstances regarding safety and not to cosmetic items, minor repairs, or any repairs that would be considered typical home maintenance. The altered Bill should have more depth and specificity wherein it defines "Safety", as well as how it defines the issues that would fall beneath the term, e.g., structural integrity of the dwelling, construction methods used, proper use of building materials, etc.
The spirit of SB 627 is well-intended; however, if the bill is not written properly (as in its present form), it will cause an avalanche of issues including 1) Rising insurance premiums and deductibles that will cause hardship to many small business owners, 2) Subsequent increases of inspection fees to customers as a result of increased business costs, 3) Exploitation and closure of non-franchised small businesses who have no capacity to bear the added costs, and 4) An increase in frivolous claims being made by some customers.
As someone who has been involved in residential construction for forty years, and who has been in the home inspection business for nineteen years, we appreciate the changes that have been implemented by the Commonwealth, specifically the certification requirement in effect since July 1, 2017. We welcome any changes that will increase professionalism in our industry, and we hope that SB 627 in its current form will be tabled until further study can be performed and modifications can be made as we have suggested.
This is in reqards to the above proposed VA licensed home inspector regulations changes to allow a language for an unlimited liability claims against the inspectors. I am strongly against this type of allowance. I believe there are many inspectors who will leave the insdustry due to higher insurance premiums, creating a shortage of professionals who perform the vital part of the realestate transaction process for the home buyers. The state license required liability insurance currently in place is adequate. In my 23 years of experience as a licensed and certified professional home inspector in Virginia and Maryland, I believe the current level of HI license requirements to be adequate and will serve the home buying publics interests well. We do not need to burden the industry professionals further.
Sincerely,
Andrew Ling, ACI, VA License #160
Dear Director Henshaw,
As you are aware, Senator Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) introduced Senate Bill 627 in the 2018 session that would prohibit home inspectors from limiting their liability in home inspection contracts. This stems from an experience whereby a homebuyer ordered a termite inspection as an additional service, from a drop-down menu offering, while also ordering a full home inspection. Significant termite damage was discovered once the homebuyer took possession of the property. In reviewing the termite inspection contract, it was discovered that the inspection company had limited liability, and the homebuyer would only be able to recover the cost of the inspection. As I understand it, this issue was handled through the Home Inspector Licensing Board and regulatory body through DPOR.
However, since the bill has been presented, I would like to bring several items to your attention that I realize you are already aware of:
1. Home inspections include a written evaluation of the readily accessible components of a residential building such as heating, cooling, plumbing, and electrical systems; structural components; foundation; roof; and masonry. Termite inspections are not part of a home inspection, and are often separate inspections required by lenders.
2. All home inspectors in Virginia are required to be licensed. As a condition of State licensure, home inspectors are required to carry $250,000 of liability insurance. If this bill were to be enacted, insurers would likely either drop home inspectors from coverage because of the limits of liability being removed, or the rates would skyrocket, and/or the insurers could potentially require home inspectors to carry costly errors and omissions coverage, with that cost being passed on to the homebuyer. If insurers were to drop home inspectors, they would be unable to meet the state requirements for licensure.
3. Passing this law could not only create an environment that increases the costs of home inspections, but reduces the number of home inspectors available in some given areas of the state, thereby creating a situation that might cause the homeowner to NOT hire a home inspector. It is our understanding that the goal of the state regulations are to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Commonwealth. Failure to inspect a home, especially a vacant property, using the professional services of a licensed home inspector, could result in not only a negative financial impact to the homebuyer, but safety as well, as in the area of fire, carbon monoxide poisoning and other life threatening events.
4. Limited liability is a necessary protection. Home inspectors test and assess a number of components within a home, most of which have a limited life span. An HVAC unit that functions properly in the spring can suddenly experience problems shortly thereafter during hot summer months when its load is increased.
5. As part of the licensure requirement that was enacted in 2016, consumers can file complaints with the Board of Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors. If a home inspector was found to be negligent by the Board, they can have their license suspended or revoked.
I am opposed to SB627 and request that you enter into the formal record my opposition to this bill.
What is the necessity in the legislation? With all the home sales in Virginia,, the % of issues with inspections is miniscule. In the last few years the Commonwealth has required specific testing and licensing for home inspectors. A contractor that builds a home now needs additional courses in order to look and comment on an desisting home!? The industry is not in need of micro-managing.
This, as in most legislation, creates an additional cost, insurance, etc which gets passed on the the buyer. Do we need home purchasing cost going up even more? The Feds rate hikes are doing that currently. We need home buying to be as affordable as possible. If a home inspection is too expensive for lower income purchasers they might choose to eliminate it, then subsequently have unknown costly repairs. This is legislation that is particularly problematic for lower income folks.
Last but certainly not least, this legislation opens more doors for Creative Litigation. My father was an attorney, my brother is an attorney, my wife is a par-legal in a firm, some of my best friends are lawyers. We all agree that over the last 25- 30 years ,there is a increasing trend of such lawsuits. That certainly does not need encouragement.
The answer to first question asked in the opening sentence is, there is none. Please focus legislation only when necessary. Government micro-managing on such minor things is very costly to both the consumer and taxpayer which is ALL of us! .
Type over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.
I apose the bill
This bill will hurt the home buyer in the long run.
The process of a home inspection is very difficult. With over 2,000 thngs to look for and in a window of 4 hours we focus on the important areas (9 key areas from sturcture, roof, electircal etc onwards). All for typically around $400. We typically save the buyer thousands in negotiated contract costs.
We now live in a sue happy environemt and every little detail will be sent over to the home inspector. We call problems defects in our industry. A defect may not materailize until after the day of the inspection ... under the new rules we will be liable for that too. The knock on effect is most of us will leave the industry, the price of an inspection will arrise to a few thousand dollars and most people will forgo an inspection. Thus the majority of buyers will now be exposed and I guarantee you from all the inspections I have done and people I have saved from buying homes or in one case saved a buyer $33,000 in costs for repairs these problems will just be passed on to the buyer.
I feel the system is working fine as it is. My thought is, if this is to protect the buyer, then threr should be a mandatory level of insurance required for home inspectors to carry. This will protect the consumer for errors and mistakes and has already been implimented with all inspectors now being DPOR certified and having to carry insuarance. If your goal is to protect home buyers ... making inspectors liable for everything will have the oppostie effect. No more inpsctions for the majority of people ... you wouldn't believe the thngs we find constantly. I urge you to protect the home buyer and not impliment these changes proposed!
Virginia Senate Bill 627, as proposed, will have an unfavorable outcome and be damaging to real estate transactions, future home buyers and the hard working professional home inspectors. To open up liability for items that may arise after an inspection that were not visible the day of the inspection, and to require home inspectors to carry the liability for items that were either outside the scope of the state regulated home inspection or were undetectable, just doesn't make sense. Limiting liability as it stands currently is the best way to ensure no frivolous lawsuits or claims arise when a homebuyer decides that they aren't responsible for the costs that come with home ownership.
For example, no homeowner wants to pay for a new HVAC unit that stops working properly 6 months after moving in but was working properly the day of the inspection. They feel someone should pay other than them and this is exactly the reason why we need to keep the protections in place for the home inspector. Unfortunately, systems break down, water entry occurs out of the blue from a storm, etc.. These are situations that come with home ownership. If you eliminate the liability protection from the home inspection contract, there will be a dramatic increase in such frivolous claims, and the home inspectors' liability insurance will become too cost prohibitive to afford and prices will rise significantly for homebuyers to cover this expense. There will be less home inspectors willing to conduct inspections when the opportunity for catastrophic liability and lawsuits will put them out of business. As the industry sits now, if there is negligence in a home inspection, the home inspector will be held accountable – why are we trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?
I recommend rejecting this Bill. There has not been a sufficient number of complaints that would indicate there is a widespread problem to call for this change in Home Inspector contracts. The reasons for this bill have not made clear.
Inspectors and the real estate market will be impacted by this change. Some will leave the business due to the increased liability. New inspectors will not be attracted to join the profession. The house buyer will find it harder to engage inspectors particularly in rural areas and the costs of an inspections will be higher due to increased insurance costs.
Limiting liability is a common practice in business. Since there are many hidden areas that inspectors cannot see to comment on, we'll be liable for an issue that comes to light after the inspection. This is plainly unfair.
We should only be liable for negligence in our duties as outlined in the inspection standards. The Bill does not specify what liabiity we should accept in the course of doing business nor should it. It is extremely vague to say "for his acts". The Bill places a target on our backs for frivolous claims.
I have been a professional home inspector since 1995; have been a member of ASHI (#200890) for over 20 years ; became certified by the State of Virginia at the inception of the voluntary program; and became licensed by the State of Virginia (#3380000058) , including New Residential Structure approval, when the Law went into effect in July of 2017. I have adhered to the Standards of Practice and the Code of Ethics set forth by both ASHI and the State of Virginia. I maintain all required insurance. I endeavor to meet and exceed what is required of me in each inspection. The house and conditions dictate the time required for the inspection and report writing, which typically totals 8 hours per inspection. I have recieved many high compliments for my professionalism and depth of detail. All of this to say, I am well aware of how much is NOT available for me to inspect in any given structure, for a host of reasons of inaccessibility. The list of what I am not able to inspect is extensive, no matter how diligent my work may be. SB 627, if it were to become law leaves me nakedly open to the wildest imaginations by buyers and attorneys to seek what they may wish from me for whatever reason they wish. SB 627 is dangerously vague from a home inspector view. We have in the State of Virginia strong oversight by DPOR, as defined in our licensing. We have a full range of options for legal recourse in our court system, available for any injured party. SB 627 would be a superfluous add-on to an already adequate set of systems now protecting the home buying public. The Commonwealth of Virginia has a long history of protecting our freedom. Buyers are free to be as aware as they wish in shopping for and choosing their home inspector. I have more than 6,000 past customers who would say that the home buying public and the home inspection industry would suffer a significant loss if I were to close my business. That option would be the likely outcome if SB 627 were to become law. I will not expose myself to unlimited liability, as SB 627 proposes. I, Jim Gannon of Gannon Home Inspections, am adamantly opposed to SB 627.
Please reject Senate Bill 627. Its passage would 1) undermine the consumer protection that the home inspection regulations have created for the Commonwealth and 2) be detrimental to the home inspection industry.
The bill fails to reflect:
Negative Impacts on Consumers. If this bill were to be enacted, insurers might drop home inspectors from coverage and/or rates would skyrocket. Home Inspection providers would leave the business and/or these costs would need to be passed on to consumers. If inspections became too expensive, many home purchasers would forgo the service and enter into transactions uninformed and unprotected with respect to the condition of the homes they are buying. The impact on the availability of home inspectors would vary across the Commonwealth, and potentially leave some areas with reduced availability of qualified and licensed home inspectors. (Moreover, if insurance was unavailable, inspectors would be unable to meet the state requirements for licensure.) Failure to use the professional services of a licensed home inspector could result in not only a negative financial impact to the homebuyer, but safety as well, as in the area of fire, carbon monoxide poisoning and other life threatening events. These impacts seem contrary to the underlying core purpose of home inspection regulations.
Limited liability is a necessary protection in this profession. Home inspectors test and assess a number of components within a home, most of which have a limited life span. Home inspectors are limited in the extent to which they can assess the components of a home - limited by time, the visual and non-destructive requirements, and what customers are willing to pay for a well-trained generalist. (Customers could choose to hire a plumber, roofer, electrician, structural engineer, and other specialists at far greater expense to assess the individual components of a home, but that would be impractical and cost prohibitive.) As it is, many customers blame home inspectors when components that were working at the inspection, but fail during the months that follow. Eliminating the liability limitations would probably increase the number and cost of frivolous claims. As part of the licensure requirement that was enacted in 2016, consumers can file complaints with the Board of Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors. If a home inspector is found to be negligent by the Board, it can suspend or revoke the inspector's license.
Senate Bill 627 would undermine the consumer protection that the home inspection regulations have created for the Commonwealth. Please consider the information and vote this bill down.
Thank you for your consideration,
Barry Holt, Principal
PepperWood Home Inspections, LLC
I am an ASHI Certified Home Inspector and follow the strick Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics set forth by this organization, the oldest, most respected organization for home inspectors in the US and Canada. We provide a valuable service to the home buying public, determing the condition of the property through a thorough NON INVASIVE inspection of the property., The inspection is a determination of the condition of the property through a visual inspection on the day of the inspection. This bill does not allow for the lawsuits that will surely arise when problems happen after the inspection. Wind storms damage roofs, rain causes new leaks and pests or rodents create damage that did not exist when the property was inspected. Now, with unlimited liabilty, the home inspector will be a target for the law suit hungry individual willing to take advantage of and file frivilous lawsuits for issues that were not visible or did not even exist on the day of the inspection.
Does this bill really help the general public ? I think not. Out of the tens of thousands of home inspections conducted annually in Virginia - how big of a problem is this anyway ? If one takes the time to better understand the home inspection process and to research the miniscule number of times this has become an issue, you will realize that this bill is unnecessary, beauracratic and harmful legislation.
As an inspector we have 2-4 hours to go through a home, we have to deal with personally belongings concealing walls in many locations, we deal with vacant homes that utilities may be turned off so issues are not present during the inspection and may appear after they are turned on for a longer time. We deal with owners that have concealed the issues with paint or other coverings on purpose.
If you eliminate the liability protection from the home inspection contract, there will be a dramatic increase in such frivolous claims, and the home inspectors' liability insurance will become too cost prohibitive to afford and prices will rise significantly for homebuyers to cover this expense. There will be less home inspectors willing to conduct inspections when the opportunity for catastrophic liability and lawsuits will put them out of business. As the industry sits now, if there is negligence in a home inspection, the home inspector will be held accountable – why are we trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?
KILL The Bill
Brian Delhagen
I oppose the adoption of SB 627. The language used in the bill is vague and opens the home inspector community to risk of litigation that is inappropriate. The costs associated with insurance requirements as a result of this bill will drastically effect the ability of smalll home inspection companies to continue doing business.
As a result of this bill the cost of doing business will increase dramatically and that cost will be passed on to the client. I do not believe that this bill is in the intrest of the home inspector community of the clients we serve.