What say you?

[Robert Jones]

Had an inspection today, on the furnace, was a label that indicated service recently. As a part of the service description, the technician made a comment that there was a "dimple" crack in the exchanger behind the high temp limit. Can't say that I have ever heard that terminology before.

I know what I typically say when there is a crack in the exchanger. Is "dimple" not a replaceable offense?

[Jim Katen]

Had an inspection today, on the furnace, was a label that indicated service recently. As a part of the service description, the technician made a comment that there was a "dimple" crack in the exchanger behind the high temp limit. Can't say that I have ever heard that terminology before.

I know what I typically say when there is a crack in the exchanger. Is "dimple" not a replaceable offense?

He's talking about the near ubiquitous cracking around the dimples in the Carrier line (Bryant, Payne, Day & Night) of furnaces. It's a crack in the heat exchanger and the heat exchanger or the entire furnace should be replaced.

[Jim Katen]

Here's the inspection sequence, if you're interested in discovering these cracks during an inspection.

Click to Enlarge

57.17 KB

Click to Enlarge

54.25 KB

Click to Enlarge

20.85 KB

Do not neglect to turn off the power before doing this. If you don't and you ground out the high limit switch, you'll blow a fuse that will prevent the furnace from working. Then you have to go out to your car and swipe a fuse from it to get the furnace working again.

[Robert Jones]

As always, thanks Jim. It was a Carrier, located in a crawl space. Wonder why the tech wouldn't call it for repair/replacement. I will in my report.

[Welmoed]

I'll probably get slammed for this, but doesn't this kind of take-it-apart inspection really go beyond the SOP? Is it really the job of the home inspector? Or do you guys just enjoy this stuff?

[Marc]

It's done, at least in my case, in the interest of serving the client. But you are correct Welmoed, liabilities do skyrocket when the realm of an inspection is expanded.

Just my opinion.

Marc

[kurt]

Absolutely, no, and occasionally, but most of the time I don't.

[Jim Katen]

I'll probably get slammed for this, but doesn't this kind of take-it-apart inspection really go beyond the SOP? Is it really the job of the home inspector? Or do you guys just enjoy this stuff?

It's clearly going beyond the standards.

I hope that I never perform an inspection that doesn't exceed the standards in some way.

[Mark P]

That is very informative which is why I have hung around TIJ for the past 9 years or so.

On another note, I blew a 3 amp fuse recently when I pluged in an electronic air filter that was not pluged in. In addition to learning way the filter was not plugged in the HVAC system stoped working. I was able to figure out what had happened went to a HVAC supply store bought a bag of fuses and got the system working again. Now I'll keep the spare fuses in my car for the next time. The fuses in these systems are either 3 or 5 amp, in case you want to stock up.

[Jim Katen]

It's done, at least in my case, in the interest of serving the client. But you are correct Welmoed, liabilities do skyrocket when the realm of an inspection is expanded.

Just my opinion.

Marc

I disagree with your opinion. Liabilities skyrocket when you miss things. Finding problems reduces liabilities.

[Marc]

It's done, at least in my case, in the interest of serving the client. But you are correct Welmoed, liabilities do skyrocket when the realm of an inspection is expanded.

Just my opinion.

Marc

I disagree with your opinion. Liabilities skyrocket when you miss things. Finding problems reduces liabilities.

A lot more can be found on an inspection only via disassembly of appliances. You become liable for it once you demonstrate by removing the limit switch on a furnace that such disassembly is within the scope of your inspection.

Marc

[kurt]

Is this a variation of "if you do it on one part, you are then responsible for doing it on all parts"...(?).

[Marc]

Is this a variation of "if you do it on one part, you are then responsible for doing it on all parts"...(?).

It means if you do it on one part and not all of them then you accept liability for everything you didn't check.

I do it sometimes but always consider and weigh whether it's worth the liability or not.

I want to serve my client but don't want to end up inside a courtroom.

Marc

[kurt]

It just won't die.

[inspector57]

It just won't die.

I wish we could rewind life and figure out the beginning of rumors and misinformation.

[kurt]

I always thought we "accepted liability" on everything we looked at, or didn't look at, or thought we should look at but didn't, and the stuff that folks said don't bother looking at because we're going to tear it out anyway, and also the items that they think of a year or so later that we might have looked at but weren't sure if we should as we might be liable because we looked.

So, don't look at anything, because if you look at even one thing, then one is liable for looking at everything.

Does that cover it?

[Marc]

I always thought we "accepted liability" on everything we looked at, or didn't look at, or thought we should look at but didn't, and the stuff that folks said don't bother looking at because we're going to tear it out anyway, and also the items that they think of a year or so later that we might have looked at but weren't sure if we should as we might be liable because we looked.

That's been my view lately.

So, don't look at anything, because if you look at even one thing, then one is liable for looking at everything.

Does that cover it?

Not in the least.

I'm saying don't miss what's under the Contract/SOP umbrella and proceed cautiously when venturing out from under it's shadow to grab what the buyer needs and will get him his satisfaction.

There's liabilities regardless of which way you go and even if you don't go at all but some choices might have less liabilities than others. It's a judgement call every time. It's what makes our hair go white.

Marc

[kurt]

This topic makes my hair go white.

[Brandon Whitmore]

As usual, Jim K's answer is spot on.

The cracks at the dimples are quite common.

Had I known of this issue back when I was doing inspections, I'd have been checking the HX's without question.

[Jim Katen]

It means if you do it on one part and not all of them then you accept liability for everything you didn't check.

I do it sometimes but always consider and weigh whether it's worth the liability or not.

I want to serve my client but don't want to end up inside a courtroom.

I'm amazed that you actually believe that. I figured that most thinking home inspectors rejected that erroneous logic over a decade ago.

The standards are a starting point: the minimum legal standard of performance, not some lofty goal that you aspire to reach. Exceeding them is good, not bad.

Would you fault a builder for exceeding the code in one part of a home but not in another?

People *do not* sue you for exceeding the standards. They sue you when you miss problems.

[kurt]

And, if one is sued, the standard that's applied is not some little known or minimalist SOP; the standard that will be applied is that which the most competent inspector in your locale applies.

You will be compared to your peers, not an SOP.

[Les]

I know several inspectors, on a national level, that work as "experts". Actually it is mostly litigation support. I suspect not a single one will list an SOP as an issue or a basis for action. It is all about expectation and management of expectations.

Then again there are times when I really worry that the Jim K's and Kurt M's are not in touch with what many thousand inspectors believe. Can't say that I know, but have a strong opinion that it is not one world out there. Anything local, as custom or fact, will trump any SOP at any level. Just my opinion.

[kurt]

I think it's close to one world.....most folks believe what Marc thinks; the vast majority believe it. I don't know if I'm in touch, but I'm not oblivious.

I have a generally depressed outlook on the state of the HI biz. It's pretty stupid on most levels.

[Jerry Simon]

So, don't look at anything, because if you look at even one thing, then one is liable for looking at everything.

I believe that covers it quite well.

I also believe Marc is assuming one is already in court, having already been sued, and he's assuming one will be found guilty of missing something because he should have exceeded standards and found the defect ('cause he exceeded standards in other areas).

That said, I don't think anyone can produce case law on such. . .

[Les]

I think it's close to one world.....most folks believe what Marc thinks; the vast majority believe it. I don't know if I'm in touch, but I'm not oblivious.

I have a generally depressed outlook on the state of the HI biz. It's pretty stupid on most levels.

Kurt,

I think you are right.

Jerry, there is case law, however most issues never get to court or become case law.

From my experience only one of maybe 200 ever get past discovery.

Jim, nice photos and explaination!