Pre-Inspection Agreement Saves Home Inspector from Two Attorneys

by Nigel Bonny

 

 

Sometimes claims are legitimate and have merit. However, most of the time the claimant, particularly in a case against a home inspector, is out to get the inspector and /or the inspector’s insurance company in the hopes that the insurance company will foot the bill for an expensive remodeling job. In order for coverage to apply, many insurance companies require a pre-inspection agreement to be signed by the client before the inspection begins. This pre-inspection agreement outlines what the inspector is and is not going to report on.

 

It goes without saying that this document is a vital component of the inspection process. Many clients have expectations which go beyond the scope of an inspection, and they assume (often with a complicit wink from the real estate agent) that if something goes wrong with any of the systems, structures or appliances after they move in, the inspector will pay to fix or replace it. The claim file we are going to review in this issue provides a perfect example of how a client tried to use the inspector as a scapegoat for all and every problem discovered in the home two years after moving in, and regardless of what limitations the homeowner signed off on in the pre-inspection agreement.

 

In June 2004, Roger Bannis, a former professional soccer player turned home inspector, was called upon to inspect a twenty-five year old home in Kentucky. The weather was hot and humid and it had rained two days prior to the inspection. The clients, Dick & Wanda Grabbitt both attended the inspection. Curiously enough, both of them were attorneys.

 

Two years later, without any further communication from the sellers or buyers, Bannis was served with a summons and complaint outlining a litany of items which the Grabbitts said Bannis should have covered in his report. In view of the time lapse between the inspection and the complaint (two years) it is worth outlining each and every item Bannis allegedly missed:

 

1)                  Flea infestation, animal defecation and urine on the carpets.

2)                  The shower was not working and was improperly strapped.

3)                  The sub-floor in the bathroom was shifting due to improper drainage. Human waste was recovered from the sub-floor.

4)                  The septic pipe was buried only eight inches below ground and not below the frost line.

5)                  Shelving, a mailbox and a wishing well had been removed from the property before closing.

6)                  The sunroom heater needed repairs.

7)                  There were rotting roof boards under the shingles.

 

Additionally, the Grabbitts were asking Bannis to pay them $2,500.00 for the general inconvenience of having to wait for new carpet. Apparently they lost vacation time because of having to wait for the replacement.

 

Before the inspection Bannis went through the pre-inspection agreement with his clients, item by item. Bannis’ pre-inspection was very clear and precise. Furthermore, it included an arbitration clause.

 

The judge ordered the case to arbitration. The Grabbitts offered their case to the arbitrator. Bannis was well prepared. He told the arbitrator that he never proceeds with an inspection until he feels certain that his clients have read, understood and signed his pre-inspection agreement. He explained that this agreement informs his clients of the limitations of a home inspection. He presented a copy of the agreement signed by both Dick and Wanda Grabbitt to the arbitrator.

 

With respect to the flea infestation and the feces/urine on the carpet, he pointed out the clause in the agreement that states he can only report on what is visible and accessible at the time of the inspection. On the day he performed the inspection he did not notice fleas, feces, or urine on the carpet. He also wondered aloud why the Grabbitts, who were with him during the inspection, failed to notice it. Bannis also pointed to the clause in his pre-inspection agreement that specifically excludes termites and pests from his report and his recommendation that a pest expert be used if that was cause for concern.

 

Bannis then addressed the shower issue. He pointed to his report wherein it stated very clearly “Shower not working correctly. Pressure is very low. Recommend replacement of pressure tank.” With respect to the sub-floor issue in the same bathroom, Bannis pointed to the clause in the pre-inspection agreement wherein it states, unambiguously, that the inspection is a visual one and only accessible areas would be inspected. The arbitrator asked the Grabbitts how they became aware of the sub-floor issue. Their response did not help their cause. They told the arbitrator that their contractor noticed it after tearing up the floor while re-modeling the bathroom.

 

The septic issue was an easy one for Bannis to address. His inspection agreement contains the following clause: “This inspection does not include septic systems. This inspector suggests that the buyer should ask the seller to have the septic system pumped out prior to closing and to have the septic system inspected at the same time.” In addition to that pre-inspection agreement clause, Bannis’ inspection report includes the language: “This inspector is not qualified to inspect or report on issues arising from septic system.”

 

As for the shelving and the mailbox, and the wishing well that was apparently moved before closing, Bannis explained that those items were out of his control and certainly beyond the scope of the inspection. He noticed that the mailbox and wishing well were both there at the time of the inspection but had no clue what shelving the Grabbitts were referring to.

 

Bannis then asked about the type of repairs that had been required to fix the sunroom heater. Two years earlier, he had specifically noted in his report that that sunroom heater was working. He also asked when the Grabbitts first noticed that it was not working. The Grabbitts could not recall when they first noticed a problem. They produced a quote from an electrician dated October 2005 (sixteen months after the inspection) showing that it would cost $124 to fix.

 

Finally, with respect to the roof problem, Bannis explained to the arbitrator that he took many pictures of the roof but that he would not be able to identify rotten roof boards that are under shingles. He did, however, identify many shingles that needed repair, including those above the location of the rotten boards. In fact he wrote on the report “As discussed, rear addition of roof contains many old shingles that are at or near the end of their life. Recommend further inspection by qualified roofing contractor as discussed.”

 

The outcome could not have been better for Roger Bannis. It took the arbitrator less than five minutes to conclude there was no liability on his part. He also expressed his astonishment that the Grabbitts, both of whom were attorneys, had blatantly ignored both the pre-inspection agreement and the report itself which addressed nearly all of the issues raised in the complaint.