KAlmquist

My guess is that an 'out of court' settlement takes place and we never know how it turned out. That maneuver seems right up Nicky's alley. Marc Your guess sounds better than mine. Though I guess the parties would reveal whether the settlement provides InterNACHI's members with a license to use HomeSafe's patents.

HomeSafe claims that InterNACHI failed to honor its agreement with HomeSafe. InterNACHI's countersuit claims that InterNACHI signed the agreement because it was misled by HomeSafe's claim that HomeSafe "owned the exclusive right to the use of any infrared technology in home inspections." My guess is that HomeSafe wins. In a press release issued at the time the agreement was reached, Nick Gromicko stated: "After a thorough review of the HomeSafe patents by our legal team, we came to the conclusion that the HomeSafe patents are, in fact, valid." Since his own legal team conducted a "thorough review" of the patents I have a hard time believing that Nick was relying on representations by HomeSafe to determine the scope of the patents. Furthermore, in a post on this site, Nick wrote: "It's the defense costs to the individual inspector who has to prove in court that he/she isn't using the patented process that is the issue. Ask any E&O insurance company... defense costs, not claim merit, is the issue." In short, HomeSafe may be a patent troll that lies about the scope of its patents, but if InterNACHI knew that when it signed the agreement, there was no fraud. It seems unfortunate that InterNACHI is willing to fund a legal battle that it is almost certain to lose, but wasn't willing to fund the cost of defending one of its members against a HomeSafe patent lawsuit.

The flue on the left is connected to a wood stove, the middle flue is connected to an unused fireplace, and the flue on the right is not connected to anything. I don't know enough about chimneys to say anything intelligent about the flue liners. The house has soffit and ridge vents. The only place I've encountered water in the house is at that end of the roof. There is what appears to be a water stain in the ceiling closer to the other end of the house, but I don't know how old it is. Click to Enlarge 24.51 KB

Thanks for the reply, Bill. Curiously, it looks like they did reinstall the flashing on the other side of the chimney (at least they got a shingle under it). Click to Enlarge 65.89 KB

House was built in 1966. The roof was redone in 1994, with Bird Mark 80 fiberglass shingles placed over the original shingles. Click to Enlarge 78.18 KB Click to Enlarge 84.93 KB The roof sheathing is 5/8 inch C.D. exterior grade plywood (presumably CDX plywood in modern parlance). I'm guessing the deformation is due to water damage. This roof is over a cathedral ceiling. Water is entering the exterior wall of the house, and since there are no obvious problems with the siding or the rest of the roof I'm guessing that the water is penetrating the roof at this point, running along the interior of the ceiling and into the wall. Was the flashing done correctly? Click to Enlarge 78.53 KB Click to Enlarge 78.6 KB Click to Enlarge 84.42 KB