Home inspections are not comprehensive and are inherently limited in scope, therefore there must be a reasonable limitation on what the inspector is liable for.  Damages caused by the acts of a home inspector are already covered by general liability insurance. There is a system already in place to deal with inspectors who fail to follow the standard of practice. If this bill is attempting to lift the liabilty for Errors and Omissions, the wording is not clear. Is a report omission or an item that the inspector did not see considered "damages arising from his acts"? This makes no sense. I oppose this bill because it is not necessary for general liabilty, and Errors and Omissions does need limitations due to the limited visual and accessible nature of components and systems at one point in time in the home inspection.