Jim Katen

Why not just replace the bearings on the existing motor? 

If it were up to me, I'd still be using Windows 3.1. 

We've been steady for the last 7-8 years or so. 

I saw one several weeks back (months back?) It startled me, but seemed like a good idea. 

Sounds like it would be an easy sell to pick up some litigation support work. 

3 hours ago, John Kogel said:

Thanks, Bill.

So Jim, an old report of yours will be used to sue another inspector for his more recent inspection?

 

Not necessarily. 

I don't know what's happening in Jim B's case, but in my company's case, the homeowner, who bought our inspection service, was suing a subsequent contractor who did work on the house. They allege bad workmanship. The contractor, on the other hand, alleges that the damage that they're suing for pre-existed. Both sides subpoenaed our report and *all* related documentation, including ISN records, emails, any existing notes, etc, etc, hoping to help prove their case. So far no one has called to ask us for expert witness work - which suggests that neither side found what they were looking for in our records. 

So far, we're just out several reams of paper, for which each side paid us $30. 

7 hours ago, Jim Baird said:

Letter from defendant lawyer in a suit related to my inspection of a dwelling demands "all documents, photos, etc".  I am about to call them and inform them that my report stands alone as any documents I issue.  They want me to have a notary sign off on my affirmation of my report as mine.

Comments?

Letter? No. 

Subpoena? Yes. 

We just had one where the plaintiffs subpoena'd *all* of our records, then a few months later the defendants did the same. Sheesh! We send each one several pounds of paper. 

9 hours ago, JayneEVHI said:

The door must exit into an open outdoor space I believe. Did I understand your question correctly?

No. Chris is talking about a stairway that runs from the kitchen into the basement. At this stairway's landing, a door opens to the exterior. 

In my opinion, that's still just a primary egress path. The basement is supposed to have an emergency escape & rescue opening in addition to its primary egress path. 

Here's an idea: 

Instead of advising your inspectors to *never* exceed the standards, I suggest introducing the concept of "tactical exceedance."

Begin by including a statement like this in the inspection agreement, "The inspector may occasionally exceed the standard of practice as a courtesy to the customer, who agrees that, in doing so, the inspector will not exceed the standard in every regard or in every instance." Or something like that. I'm sure that your lawyers can get the gist across. 

Then, inspectors can feel a bit more free to perform risk assessments to decide when it's more beneficial to go the extra mile or so to find problems. 

As an insurer, providing guidance about how to perform that risk assessment and when it's actually beneficial to exceed the standard would be a lot more useful - and do more to reduce claims - than simply issuing blanket advice to never exceed. 

By the way, if you implement this concept, I want full credit. It should be called, "The Katen Method" and spoken of reverently, in hushed and respectful tones. 

On 9/20/2019 at 7:46 AM, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Thanks for sharing that. That section from the ASHI SOP does shed some much needed light on the SOP's intended use.

However, I do think you misunderstand our purpose as insurance providers. The risk management tips we provide are meant to do just that: manage risk. We aim to help home inspectors limit their liability and prevent potential claims by sharing the information we've gathered from a decade of insuring and defending inspectors from allegations. While you may disagree with the counsel to stay within the SOP rather than exceed it, that counsel isn't based on personal opinion. Rather, it's based on actual cases we've faced. To not recognize that inspecting beyond the SOP can make claims more difficult to defend would be a disservice to our clients and other inspectors who read our articles in hopes of being able to apply various techniques to shield their businesses from claims. So, while there are some inspectors who disagree with the principle, we continue to share that counsel so that inspectors can then make an educated decision about how they run their inspection businesses.

I fully understand your purpose as an insurance provider. But I think that your advice is short-sighted and, ultimately, self-defeating. Inspectors don't get sued for finding problems, they get sued for missing them. The very slight increase in liability caused by exceeding the standards is far outweighed by the very great decrease in liability gained by finding otherwise hidden problems. 

I'm old enough to remember when inspectors first started to use moisture meters. My insurer a the time advised me not to use one and, if I were to use one, never to mention it in the report or to let the customer see me using it. Their reasoning was that using a moisture meter would instantly make my inspection "technically exhaustive" and open me up to all kinds of disastrous claims. That was dumb reasoning at the time and every inspector I know uses a moisture meter today. What really happens is that the moisture meters help to find problems and reduce the inspectors' liability. They are, of course, beyond the standards.  (The same argument is now playing out with IR cameras.)

Likewise, I remember when we first started to use digital cameras. Again, my insurer advised against taking any pictures during the inspection because one of the pictures might capture a defect that I didn't include in my report and that picture could be used against me in court. They were also concerned about a seller suing if I took pictures of personal property. None of that turned out to be much of an issue. (And if an inspector does take a picture of a defect and not report on it, then he or she probably should be responsible for the oversight.) In the long term, pictures reduce liability and InspectorPro (and probably every other insurer out there) knows that perfectly well (you having just written an article about how every inspector should take hundreds of thousands of pictures every minute). They, of course, go beyond the standards. 

You stand at one small corner of the home inspection profession and your view is distorted by your perspective from that corner. I suggest that by taking a step or two back, you'll see that advising people not to exceed the standards is actually increasing rather than decreasing the overall risk of your customer pool. 

Bottom line: exceeding the standards might make it a little bit more difficult for an attorney to defend an inspector, but it makes it much less likely that the inspector will need that attorney in the first place. 

10 hours ago, Les said:

"An inspection report that doesn't exceed the standard of practice is a piss-poor report. "

 

Dear James Katen, 

Please tell us how you feel about home inspector standards of practice and what purpose they serve.

Thank You

Leslie Van Alstine

Home inspector standards of practice are the bare minimum performance standard; the floor that you stand on when you do a home inspection. They define a dollar-store home inspection product. 

4 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

Hi, @Jim Katen. I agree that, in many instances, what protects the client and the inspector are the same thing.

As for the SoP being a minimum rather than a maximum, that's just not how we've seen the SoP interpreted by attorneys, arbitrators, and judges. That's why we recommend staying within the SoP rather than exceeding it. Whether meeting rather than exceeding the SoP was what the people who framed the SoP intended, I can't say. But, I can say that's not how the SoP is regularly being used in both claims filings and defense.

This isn't an interpretation. It's a fact.

The first sentence of the ASHI SOP under "purpose" reads: 

• The purpose of the Standards of Practice is to establish a minimum and uniform standard for home inspectors who subscribe to these Standards of Practice.

The opening paragraph of the Oregon State Standards reads:

• OAR 812-008-0202 through 812-008-0214 of this rule set forth the minimum standards of practice required by Oregon certified home inspector.

Nothing in either of these standards even comes close to suggesting that the standard is not to be exceeded. (I can't speak to the standards of other organizations or other states - especially stupid states like Texas.) 

By parroting myth that exceeding the standards increases your liability, InspectorPro is  contributing to the problem, not helping it. 

8 hours ago, InspectorPro Insurance said:

But, we recognize, too, that there are plenty of instances where what best serves the client and what best protects the inspector seem to be in conflict. In these situations, as insurance providers, it's always our job to always advocate for what's most likely to avoid claims.

I think your just plain wrong here. There are, of course, times when those conflicts are present, but they're rare. In the vast majority of instances, the thing that best protects the inspector is for him or her to do that thing that best serves the customer. In other words, cover the client's butt and yours will be covered automatically. 

By the way, the people who framed the original standard of practice for this profession clearly intended for that standard to be a *minimum*, not a maximum. 

An inspection report that doesn't exceed the standard of practice is a piss-poor report. 

Once again, the article starts off great and then goes off into the weeds. 

Instead of advising people to never exceed the standards of practice, here's an idea: 

Take the time to find the problems and tell your customers about them. 

3 hours ago, Ken Meyer said:

If your HVAC system has a condensate pump, how about running the dehumidifier drain line(s) into that?

Too easy. 

Make the little ankle biters work for their keep. 

Even better: make the kids dump the bins. 

9 hours ago, Les said:

my favorite is the phone number! 

It had to just be a mnemonic device by 1965. Five number dialing within the same exchange was probably phased out by 1965, no?  

https://austin.craigslist.org/cto/d/san-antonio-1979-dodge-star-wars-van/6976267552.html

'nuff said. 

Jim L: it's only a half-day drive for you, you lucky dog. 

Marc: you could be there in 6 hours. 

Makes me want to buy liquor. 

Nice composition. 

I assume you're not just filling up the storage card? 

Well, it's not sexy, but spelling is important. An occasional typo is no big deal, but nothing in your boilerplate should be misspelled and you should never misspell construction terms that might not be part of the customers' vocabulary; when they go to look them up, they'll be baffled. There's just no excuse for a report that talks about "rusting lentils" and "lathe & plaster." It makes you look like a dumb hick.  (And if there's more than one furnace, don't call one of them the "principle furnace" unless it has high moral standards.) 

I'd also focus on getting rid of what I call "mushy mush mush" report writing, "It was observed that the roof is older than it's average condition and might or might not perform satisfactorily over the course of its remaining service life, which it might or might not have exceeded. Hire an expert licensed roofing specialist to advise." (Taken verbatim from an actual report.) Strive to tell the customer exactly what the problem is and exactly what to do about it. 

Avoid word salad. Use clear words. Don't say, "Debris between the deck treads can facilitate rot." Deck treads? Facilitate rot? Who the heck speaks like that?  Here's another, "Confined spaces were inaccessible." What this mean?  Why might it be important? What should the customer do about it? 

One of my favorites: Have any rot in the deck removed and replaced. (Where can I find some "replacement rot"? ) 

On 9/6/2019 at 2:12 PM, pm124 said:

We have a 120 year old building with a crack in the wall. We hired an inspector to look at it because we do not trust just hiring contractors. He recommended that we just reach down to it from the roof with a caulk gun and fill the with caulk. That is, put caulk in the gap formed in the mortar and in the gaps spanning the bricks. Moreover, the crack runs right next to where some other idiot decided to slap caulk on the outside of our building. This all seemed unbelievably foolish to me. 

Is there any merit to this claim?

Is this the same building and the same crack in this topic: 

Thanks Ken. I'm amazed. 

It looks interesting, but I've never heard of it before. I've had excellent results with the Schluter products. I'm not sure what this does that Schluter doesn't do.