E & O insurance limits

[Darren]

Uh Jerry;

Read that again, not only don't you get a discount, you actually get penalized. You get FREE membership in Nick's club.

I have more to say about Joe's post, but that'll be tomorrow.

[jferry]

Originally posted by Jerry Simon

Joe,

I enjoyed this post. TY for the interesting story.

Since I'm from IL, I looked at the seminar details. I really, really was going to sign up until I noticed that only NACHO members get a discount. Truly disappointing...that, and that I won't sign up because of that. (Yeah, I'm one of those ASHI folk.)

Still, sounds good, and I'm sure you'll be full.

Only iNACHI members get a discount because iNACHI wants its members to hear this valuable information and gives them a $100 subsidy. Maybe you could get ASHI to extend the same benefit to its members.

Many ASHI members have taken the course and are unanimous in their praise of its value and timeliness. Gary Monfeli, the president of the Chicago ASHI chapter heard an abridged version of the seminar in November and he is among my biggest boosters. And he will be at the Chicago seminar.

I hope you reconsider. You won't regret it.

[Bain]

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by Jerry Simon

Joe,

I enjoyed this post. TY for the interesting story.

Since I'm from IL, I looked at the seminar details. I really, really was going to sign up until I noticed that only NACHO members get a discount. Truly disappointing...that, and that I won't sign up because of that. (Yeah, I'm one of those ASHI folk.)

Still, sounds good, and I'm sure you'll be full.

Only iNACHI members get a discount because iNACHI wants its members to hear this valuable information and gives them a $100 subsidy. Maybe you could get ASHI to extend the same benefit to its members.

Many ASHI members have taken the course and are unanimous in their praise of its value and timeliness. Gary Monfeli, the president of the Chicago ASHI chapter heard an abridged version of the seminar in November and he is among my biggest boosters. And he will be at the Chicago seminar.

I hope you reconsider. You won't regret it.

Yo, Mike. In the interest of fairness, TIJ should offer its members a $100.00 subsidy.

C'mon, pleeeaaase . . .

[hausdok]

Hi John,

Well, I guess if I collected $289 a year from everyone who uses this site, like interNACHI does, I could afford to do that. Until then, since this is a free site and membership here is free, and it's paid advertising that keeps this site in existence, I'm just going to have to do the best I can with what I make from the folks who are courteous enough to pay to advertise their gigs to the members here.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hausdok]

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by Jerry Simon

Joe,

I enjoyed this post. TY for the interesting story.

Since I'm from IL, I looked at the seminar details. I really, really was going to sign up until I noticed that only NACHO members get a discount. Truly disappointing...that, and that I won't sign up because of that. (Yeah, I'm one of those ASHI folk.)

Still, sounds good, and I'm sure you'll be full.

Only iNACHI members get a discount because iNACHI wants its members to hear this valuable information and gives them a $100 subsidy.

Are you sure it isn't because that public relations firm has told vendors that they will charge its clients less than they charge members of the home inspection associations, or else the firm will duplicate their products and then provide those products to its clients for free, thus putting those vendors out of business? I ask because I noticed a thread over on the soap opera that deals exactly with that topic that's received nearly 850 responses; most of them chiding the firm's owner for that policy.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Darren]

“One case involved the inspection of a property whose roof he reported was “nearing the end of its useful lifeâ€

[jferry]

Because I didn't write that in what was already a lengthy post does not mean that he didn't do the very things that you suggested.

The inspector's name does not begin with an F and the house was never subsequently inspected by anyone else.

Sorry to knock you off of your high horse.

[jferry]

Originally posted by hausdok

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by Jerry Simon

Joe,

I enjoyed this post. TY for the interesting story.

Since I'm from IL, I looked at the seminar details. I really, really was going to sign up until I noticed that only NACHO members get a discount. Truly disappointing...that, and that I won't sign up because of that. (Yeah, I'm one of those ASHI folk.)

Still, sounds good, and I'm sure you'll be full.

Only iNACHI members get a discount because iNACHI wants its members to hear this valuable information and gives them a $100 subsidy.

Are you sure it isn't because that public relations firm has told vendors that they will charge its clients less than they charge members of the home inspection associations, or else the firm will duplicate their products and then provide those products to its clients for free, thus putting those vendors out of business? I ask because I noticed a thread over on the soap opera that deals exactly with that topic that's received nearly 850 responses; most of them chiding the firm's owner for that policy.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

I'm not charging iNACHI members less. They pay the same as anyone else. They get a $100.00 credit towards their next year's dues.

I think it is way past time for folks to get over iNACHI. What other association does anything for its members that remotely approaches what iNACHI does for its members?

[jferry]

Originally posted by hausdok

Hi John,

Well, I guess if I collected $289 a year from everyone who uses this site, like interNACHI does, I could afford to do that. Until then, since this is a free site and membership here is free, and it's paid advertising that keeps this site in existence, I'm just going to have to do the best I can with what I make from the folks who are courteous enough to pay to advertise their gigs to the members here.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

The iNACHI message board is also a free site. You apparently are an habitué yourself. There is no paid advertising anywhere on the iNACHI site.

[jferry]

Originally posted by Bain

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by qhinspect

Why do many describe Corp and LLC as "...separate legal entity that can shield the owners from personal liability and company debt."?

http://www.mynewcompany.com/entity.htm

And lose the hostility.

Didn't mean to show hostility.

Well, it doesn't go far enough. The operative word there is "can". It can shield owners. It doesn't say "it will shield them."

It won't protect the owners if the owners are individual tortfeasors. If someone is a shareholder of a corporation operating an automobile on corporate business and kills a pedestrian as a result of his negligence both he and the corporation are going to be sued. The corporate entity will protect other shareholders from personal liability but not the tortfeasor.

Most HIs who have LLCs or Subchapter S Corporations are the ones doing the home inspecting. Their LLC or Sub S entity will not protect them because, as the tortfeasor, they can be sued individually.

Many doctors practice in professional corporations. If one of those doctors is sued for malpractice, the other doctors are protected by the PC. The PC does not protect the doctor who was sued.

I hope that that explains it.

If you didn't mean to be hostile, I am sorry that I took it that way. No harm, no foul.

Joe

Joe,

Everything you've described is accurate, as I've learned from a couple of unfortunate situations. "Piercing the veil" isn't a terribly difficult feat to accomplish. That being the reality, is there anything an individual can do to distance himself from his corporation and perhaps shield his personal assets?

I'm the sole shareholder of my sub-S corporation, and the tax code requires me to pay myself a salary as an employee, so the relationship is self evident. Are there any options available to separate, or at least put some ground between, myself personally from my business?

There is no need to pierce the corporate vail when you are the tortfeasor, the one who conducted the negligent inspection. The claimant can go after you personally.

Is there something you can do? Yes. Buy insurance.

This isn't brain surgery, folks.

[jferry]

I'm off to Inspection World. Stop at the EliteMGA booth and say hello.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by hausdok

Hi John,

Well, I guess if I collected $289 a year from everyone who uses this site, like interNACHI does, I could afford to do that. Until then, since this is a free site and membership here is free, and it's paid advertising that keeps this site in existence, I'm just going to have to do the best I can with what I make from the folks who are courteous enough to pay to advertise their gigs to the members here.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

The iNACHI message board is also a free site. You apparently are an habitué yourself. There is no paid advertising anywhere on the iNACHI site.

On the contrary,

It's clients pay that firm $289 a year to promote their companies; therefore, they are paying to maintain the soap opera. That hardly makes it a free site. TIJ, on the other hand, is free to all home inspectors; all I require is that folks register and that costs them nothing.

Sure, the firm's owner doesn't charge vendors to advertise on his site; instead, he apparently charges them for extra promotions that he does for them beyond what's apparent on the board - or so he admits to in the long contentious thread on the subject that I referenced in my previous post. I'd say that means that they are paying him one way or the other.

The benefits supplied by that firm? Let me see; he claims between 6,000 and 9,000 members at $289 a year so that's a gross of $1.7M to $2.6M per year, not counting what the vendors must pay for stuff beyond basic access to the membership by being allowed to peddle their products on the board - stuff like extra promotions, spots on the TV show, etc.

Since the firm is filed as a non-profit, it's supposed to make zero profit after paying expenses, no? So, deduct salaries of it's corporate members and expenses - such as its legal fees, etc. - and the firm still needs to ensure that the balance is given back to members in the form of "bennies" in order for it to still be entitled to non-profit status. That's the way it works, no?

Most of the "benefits" that I see when I read through the lists are discounts from vendors. If, as a vendor, I choose to, or am forced by circumstances, to make 80% less profit when dealing with a public relations firm, in order to gain access to that firm's client list, it isn't the public relations firm that's supplied the "benefit" it's me, the vendor. Walmart uses the same tactics with vendors in order to force their competition out of business - COSTCO too, I imagine. Don't get me wrong, I understand it; it's just business, but please, don't come on here and try and peddle it as anything else.

Spin it any way you want; nothing over there is free.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Darren]

Originally posted by jferry

Because I didn't write that in what was already a lengthy post does not mean that he didn't do the very things that you suggested.

The inspector's name does not begin with an F and the house was never subsequently inspected by anyone else.

Sorry to knock you off of your high horse.

I doubt he wrote anything near what I suggested; you stated you "answered 3 recent request letters"; that tells me all I need to know.

I never suggested the house was re-inspected I said 'Not being an attorney, I do believe I would have won the case against Mr. F.'

If I did represent that client, then I would have had it re-inspected; twice.

Mr. Ferry, I'm not on a high horse, never was nor will be. I'm just a normal guy trying to do the best I can for my clients.

However, if I were on a high horse,

it would take a BETTER man than you to knock me down.

[jferry]

Originally posted by Darren

Originally posted by jferry

Because I didn't write that in what was already a lengthy post does not mean that he didn't do the very things that you suggested.

The inspector's name does not begin with an F and the house was never subsequently inspected by anyone else.

Sorry to knock you off of your high horse.

I doubt he wrote anything near what I suggested; you stated you "answered 3 recent request letters"; that tells me all I need to know.

I never suggested the house was re-inspected I said 'Not being an attorney, I do believe I would have won the case against Mr. F.'

If I did represent that client, then I would have had it re-inspected; twice.

Mr. Ferry, I'm not on a high horse, never was nor will be. I'm just a normal guy trying to do the best I can for my clients.

However, if I were on a high horse,

it would take a BETTER man than you to knock me down.

If I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that you were on a high horse, I apologize.

Your post however is illustrative of a point that I drive home to the inspectors who attend the seminar.

Many inspectors are in thrall of putting a provision in their arbitration clause that the arbitrator must be "familiar with the home inspection industry." I tell them you never want a home inspector as an arbitrator for the very reason that your post so convincingly validates. No home inspector can possibly be as good an inspector as the inspector who is the arbitrator. In fact, there has never been an inspector as good as the arbitrator. He's the best. Just ask him.

In the military, courts-martial must have an enlisted man on the panel if the defendant is an enlisted man and he so elects. Every attorney with any experience with military justice tribunals counsels the defendant not to avail himself of this "privilege." The reason is you always get some grizzled E-8 or E-9 with 30 years of service under his belt who is going to vote to convict regardless of the evidence. That is why you never see an enlisted man on any court-martial tribunal. if the client insists on having an EM on the tribunal, the defense has to waste its sole peremptory challenge to get that lifer off of the panel.

Additionally, there is no need to have or any advantage to having someone "familiar with the home inspection industry" as an arbitrator. Why? Because every single day in this country in courthouses in virtually every county in the nation, juries composed of laymen and women are rendering verdicts in cases far more complex than a home inspection.

How do they do that? They hear from expert witnesses who tell them how to interpret the dispositive issues in the case. One side's expert says one thing and the other's says the polar opposite. Who to believe? The one whose testimony stands up to cross-examination.

Now imagine the critical issue in the home inspection revolves around whether or not the inspector followed the SOP. The plaintiff's expert HI says that had the inspector done something "extra" - exceeded the SOP - the problem would have been discovered and reported but he didn't and he SHOULD have.

That testimony and that expert is easily impeached when your attorney hands him the SOP and says "Tell the arbitrator where that is in the SOP". Homina homina homina.

Your guy comes in and says "Nobody does that. It's outside the SOP." He can't be impeached.

Now, there's a legal principle having to do with the credibility of witnesses. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia. If you have ever been on a jury, you have heard that phrase because it is part of every jury charge in every criminal or civil case. It means that if a witness is lying about one thing, he's likely to be lying about everything. You can't believe anything he says.

And jurors are told that if they find that a witness is lying they are entitled to disregard the whole of their testimony. They don't have to. But they may.

Well, guess what? They always disregard the witness's entire testimony. They have to. You can't have witnesses coming in and giving false testimony and getting away with it. Our entire legal system would break down, if that were not severely punished. Juries do not like being lied to. And neither do arbitrators. Truly neutral arbitrators, that is.

But your arbitrator is the BEST HOME INSPECTOR IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. Never been anyone like him. And he ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS exceeds the SOP. Because he's THE BEST!

So . . . you think you've impeached this lying expert BUT THIS GUY AGREES with the lying SOB. Now you're screwed and you should have been exonerated because you were not negligent.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by Darren

Originally posted by jferry

Because I didn't write that in what was already a lengthy post does not mean that he didn't do the very things that you suggested.

The inspector's name does not begin with an F and the house was never subsequently inspected by anyone else.

Sorry to knock you off of your high horse.

I doubt he wrote anything near what I suggested; you stated you "answered 3 recent request letters"; that tells me all I need to know.

I never suggested the house was re-inspected I said 'Not being an attorney, I do believe I would have won the case against Mr. F.'

If I did represent that client, then I would have had it re-inspected; twice.

Mr. Ferry, I'm not on a high horse, never was nor will be. I'm just a normal guy trying to do the best I can for my clients.

However, if I were on a high horse,

it would take a BETTER man than you to knock me down.

If I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that you were on a high horse, I apologize.

Your post however is illustrative of a point that I drive home to the inspectors who attend the seminar.

Many inspectors are in thrall of putting a provision in their arbitration clause that the arbitrator must be "familiar with the home inspection industry." I tell them you never want a home inspector as an arbitrator for the very reason that your post so convincingly validates. No home inspector can possibly be as good an inspector as the inspector who is the arbitrator. In fact, there has never been an inspector as good as the arbitrator. He's the best. Just ask him.

In the military, courts-martial must have an enlisted man on the panel if the defendant is an enlisted man and he so elects. Every attorney with any experience with military justice tribunals counsels the defendant not to avail himself of this "privilege." The reason is you always get some grizzled E-8 or E-9 with 30 years of service under his belt who is going to vote to convict regardless of the evidence. That is why you never see an enlisted man on any court-martial tribunal. if the client insists on having an EM on the tribunal, the defense has to waste its sole peremptory challenge to get that lifer off of the panel.

Additionally, there is no need to have or any advantage to having someone "familiar with the home inspection industry" as an arbitrator. Why? Because every single day in this country in courthouses in virtually every county in the nation, juries composed of laymen and women are rendering verdicts in cases far more complex than a home inspection.

How do they do that? They hear from expert witnesses who tell them how to interpret the dispositive issues in the case. One side's expert says one thing and the other's says the polar opposite. Who to believe? The one whose testimony stands up to cross-examination.

Now imagine the critical issue in the home inspection revolves around whether or not the inspector followed the SOP. The plaintiff's expert HI says that had the inspector done something "extra" - exceeded the SOP - the problem would have been discovered and reported but he didn't and he SHOULD have.

That testimony and that expert is easily impeached when your attorney hands him the SOP and says "Tell the arbitrator where that is in the SOP". Homina homina homina.

Your guy comes in and says "Nobody does that. It's outside the SOP." He can't be impeached.

Now, there's a legal principle having to do with the credibility of witnesses. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia. If you have ever been on a jury, you have heard that phrase because it is part of every jury charge in every criminal or civil case. It means that if a witness is lying about one thing, he's likely to be lying about everything. You can't believe anything he says.

And jurors are told that if they find that a witness is lying they are entitled to disregard the whole of their testimony. They don't have to. But they may.

Well, guess what? They always disregard the witness's entire testimony. They have to. You can't have witnesses coming in and giving false testimony and getting away with it. Our entire legal system would break down, if that were not severely punished. Juries do not like being lied to. And neither do arbitrators. Truly neutral arbitrators, that is.

But your arbitrator is the BEST HOME INSPECTOR IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. Never been anyone like him. And he ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS exceeds the SOP. Because he's THE BEST!

So . . . you think you've impeached this lying expert BUT THIS GUY AGREES with the lying SOB. Now you're screwed and you should have been exonerated because you were not negligent.

I would probably agree with most of that, if an SOP was meant to ensure that the absolute best inspection that could ever be done on a home was done every single time. However, that's not the case; every one I've seen and even on the one I've had a hand in writing, all that the majority of the folks who decide what is included and what stays in the SOP seem to want is all it takes to do a barely, just scraping over the top of the threshold, adequate inspection of a home.

Our history in this business is that inspectors who go the extra yard for their clients regularly discover major issues that the guy who refuses to exceed the SOP's misses all the time.

For instance, some folks interpret SOPs to mean that they never have to get off a ladder and actually go into an attic and inspect it. The guy who refuses to get off the top of a ladder and actually go into an attic to see what's concealed around the corner out of sight is going to miss stuff. When that stuff eventually presents itself and another inspector hops up in there easily, just like the alarm system guys and the HVAC guys and electricians do all the time, finds the stuff and presents that fact - how do you reconcile the fact that the jury will perceive the guy as lazy?

I just can't wrap my head around this; do we encourage our kids to learn as little as they can, to only be second string, not to try and get good grades so that they should go to college? Do we want to purchase the products that we know are made with shortcuts and with the bare minimum standards or do we want to purchase quality stuff. Don't we want contractors working for us to do the absolute best job they can so that we won't have to pay to have it done all over again? I was a cop for nearly 21 years and 10 of those were spent as an investigator; should I have been less careful at collecting evidence and maybe not have taken the extra effort that I did on many occasions to run down one last seemingly useless lead that ultimately proved to be the one that I needed to solve the case? If this is how we raise our children and what we expect from "professionals," why do we tell home inspectors not to ever exceed the SOP if they don't ever want to lose in court?

Seems kind of counter-intuitive to me; but maybe there's something to it, I dunno. If I did the bare minimum, I suppose I'd get more referrals from the 'zoids and could do more inspections and make more money, but would I still have as many happy past clients? After nearly 13 years of constantly going well beyond any SOP for my clients, I've yet to have even sat down to an arbitration and have never been sued, though I've heard horror stories from folks who have and that have complained that they'd stuck religiously to their SOPs. Do I really want to screw with what seems to be a winning formula?

Nah, I'm going to keep right on inspecting like Mother O'Handley (the most critical female on the planet) is the client. That way, I can be reasonably assured that I won't find myself sitting down to a table in a conference room paying a lawyer to explain to the folks on the other side of the table why it wasn't necessary for me to make that tiny bit of extra effort to do the best job possible.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[jferry]

Originally posted by hausdok

Originally posted by jferry

Originally posted by Darren

Originally posted by jferry

Because I didn't write that in what was already a lengthy post does not mean that he didn't do the very things that you suggested.

The inspector's name does not begin with an F and the house was never subsequently inspected by anyone else.

Sorry to knock you off of your high horse.

I doubt he wrote anything near what I suggested; you stated you "answered 3 recent request letters"; that tells me all I need to know.

I never suggested the house was re-inspected I said 'Not being an attorney, I do believe I would have won the case against Mr. F.'

If I did represent that client, then I would have had it re-inspected; twice.

Mr. Ferry, I'm not on a high horse, never was nor will be. I'm just a normal guy trying to do the best I can for my clients.

However, if I were on a high horse,

it would take a BETTER man than you to knock me down.

If I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that you were on a high horse, I apologize.

Your post however is illustrative of a point that I drive home to the inspectors who attend the seminar.

Many inspectors are in thrall of putting a provision in their arbitration clause that the arbitrator must be "familiar with the home inspection industry." I tell them you never want a home inspector as an arbitrator for the very reason that your post so convincingly validates. No home inspector can possibly be as good an inspector as the inspector who is the arbitrator. In fact, there has never been an inspector as good as the arbitrator. He's the best. Just ask him.

In the military, courts-martial must have an enlisted man on the panel if the defendant is an enlisted man and he so elects. Every attorney with any experience with military justice tribunals counsels the defendant not to avail himself of this "privilege." The reason is you always get some grizzled E-8 or E-9 with 30 years of service under his belt who is going to vote to convict regardless of the evidence. That is why you never see an enlisted man on any court-martial tribunal. if the client insists on having an EM on the tribunal, the defense has to waste its sole peremptory challenge to get that lifer off of the panel.

Additionally, there is no need to have or any advantage to having someone "familiar with the home inspection industry" as an arbitrator. Why? Because every single day in this country in courthouses in virtually every county in the nation, juries composed of laymen and women are rendering verdicts in cases far more complex than a home inspection.

How do they do that? They hear from expert witnesses who tell them how to interpret the dispositive issues in the case. One side's expert says one thing and the other's says the polar opposite. Who to believe? The one whose testimony stands up to cross-examination.

Now imagine the critical issue in the home inspection revolves around whether or not the inspector followed the SOP. The plaintiff's expert HI says that had the inspector done something "extra" - exceeded the SOP - the problem would have been discovered and reported but he didn't and he SHOULD have.

That testimony and that expert is easily impeached when your attorney hands him the SOP and says "Tell the arbitrator where that is in the SOP". Homina homina homina.

Your guy comes in and says "Nobody does that. It's outside the SOP." He can't be impeached.

Now, there's a legal principle having to do with the credibility of witnesses. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia. If you have ever been on a jury, you have heard that phrase because it is part of every jury charge in every criminal or civil case. It means that if a witness is lying about one thing, he's likely to be lying about everything. You can't believe anything he says.

And jurors are told that if they find that a witness is lying they are entitled to disregard the whole of their testimony. They don't have to. But they may.

Well, guess what? They always disregard the witness's entire testimony. They have to. You can't have witnesses coming in and giving false testimony and getting away with it. Our entire legal system would break down, if that were not severely punished. Juries do not like being lied to. And neither do arbitrators. Truly neutral arbitrators, that is.

But your arbitrator is the BEST HOME INSPECTOR IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. Never been anyone like him. And he ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS exceeds the SOP. Because he's THE BEST!

So . . . you think you've impeached this lying expert BUT THIS GUY AGREES with the lying SOB. Now you're screwed and you should have been exonerated because you were not negligent.

I would probably agree with most of that, if an SOP was meant to ensure that the absolute best inspection that could ever be done on a home was done every single time. However, that's not the case; every one I've seen and even on the one I've had a hand in writing, all that the majority of the folks who decide what is included and what stays in the SOP seem to want is all it takes to do a barely, just scraping over the top of the threshold, adequate inspection of a home.

Our history in this business is that inspectors who go the extra yard for their clients regularly discover major issues that the guy who refuses to exceed the SOP's misses all the time.

For instance, some folks interpret SOPs to mean that they never have to get off a ladder and actually go into an attic and inspect it. The guy who refuses to get off the top of a ladder and actually go into an attic to see what's concealed around the corner out of sight is going to miss stuff. When that stuff eventually presents itself and another inspector hops up in there easily, just like the alarm system guys and the HVAC guys and electricians do all the time, finds the stuff and presents that fact - how do you reconcile the fact that the jury will perceive the guy as lazy?

I just can't wrap my head around this; do we encourage our kids to learn as little as they can, to only be second string, not to try and get good grades so that they should go to college? Do we want to purchase the products that we know are made with shortcuts and with the bare minimum standards or do we want to purchase quality stuff. Don't we want contractors working for us to do the absolute best job they can so that we won't have to pay to have it done all over again? I was a cop for nearly 21 years and 10 of those were spent as an investigator; should I have been less careful at collecting evidence and maybe not have taken the extra effort that I did on many occasions to run down one last seemingly useless lead that ultimately proved to be the one that I needed to solve the case? If this is how we raise our children and what we expect from "professionals," why do we tell home inspectors not to ever exceed the SOP if they don't ever want to lose in court?

Seems kind of counter-intuitive to me; but maybe there's something to it, I dunno. If I did the bare minimum, I suppose I'd get more referrals from the 'zoids and could do more inspections and make more money, but would I still have as many happy past clients? After nearly 13 years of constantly going well beyond any SOP for my clients, I've yet to have even sat down to an arbitration and have never been sued, though I've heard horror stories from folks who have and that have complained that they'd stuck religiously to their SOPs. Do I really want to screw with what seems to be a winning formula?

Nah, I'm going to keep right on inspecting like Mother O'Handley (the most critical female on the planet) is the client. That way, I can be reasonably assured that I won't find myself sitting down to a table in a conference room paying a lawyer to explain to the folks on the other side of the table why it wasn't necessary for me to make that tiny bit of extra effort to do the best job possible.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

I don't accept that following the SOP to the letter will result in an inferior inspection. If that were the case virtually every inspection would be inferior.

Your uber standard is not the standard of reasonableness in a home inspection context. And that is the danger that an unsuspecting defendant home inspector would be facing with an arbitrator who believes that you can not do a non-negligent inspection unless you exceed the SOP.

Exceeding the SOP guarantees that the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished effect will ultimately obtain. If you exceed the SOP, make sure that you don't make a mistake. If you do and your client sustains damages as a result, you will find yourself being held liable for something that you otherwise would not have been, had you not exceeded the SOP.

[Darren]

"I don't accept that following the SOP to the letter will result in an inferior inspection. If that were the case virtually every inspection would be inferior."

Here in NJ, the SOP states "...at least one of each interior lighting fixture, switch, and receptacle per room..."

If I followed that standard OR I was a Realtor A-- kisser, I would hardly ever find that loose or broken outlet that's tucked away (and if I did I might not report it because I could always say that's not the one I tested).

Don't feel offended, but by doing all I can for my client, I'm trying my best never to use the services of people with your skills.

[hausdok]

Mediocrity?

That's one hell of a bar to aspire to. Isn't the whole marketing mantra that one must set one's company apart from the pack and then market that particular aspect of his or her service? I see commercials all the time on television - many of them from lawyers, even - extolling the virtue of folks' businesses and explaining to the viewers how they go over and above and do things that other firms don't. Seems to me that we are conditioned to do the best that we can; yet, you preach mediocrity. Interesting.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[jferry]

The two previous posts vindicate my position beyond all doubt. Never have a home inspector as your arbitrator.

[Darren]

Originally posted by jferry

The two previous posts vindicate my position beyond all doubt. Never have a home inspector as your arbitrator.

Why? Because there are some people out there trying to raise the bar on what a home inspection should include.

I guess it's all the other 'bucketheads' that keep you in business.

[jferry]

Originally posted by Darren

Originally posted by jferry

The two previous posts vindicate my position beyond all doubt. Never have a home inspector as your arbitrator.

Why? Because there are some people out there trying to raise the bar on what a home inspection should include.

I guess it's all the other 'bucketheads' that keep you in business.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Darren]

"Goll-darn-it Mr. Lamar, you use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore."

(Taggert)

[hausdok]

Ah obfuscation; brilliant tactic, Mr. Ferry.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike