A cosmetic issue for the most part.
I am curious who decided these are cosmetic issues. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides. Agents love to call them cosmetic issues, but most buyers have a far different opinion. They would like to be able to see out the window. I write them up as a defect in need of repair for two reasons.
- Fogged windows dramatically affect cost or value.
- As a purchaser, I would want to know and have the opportunity to cure.
Fair points. I also write them up. I guess my statement is in relation to the energy performance of the window, which seems to be the main concern of my clients. There may be a small amount of energy loss, but it is negligible for the most part. I tell my clients that the biggest issue is that they look bad. Therefore, cosmetic.
I disclaim them in my reports because it’s not always visible but will report them if visible.
Nope. An insurance policy that excludes coverage for “cosmetic damage” would still pay for damage to window seals caused by wind or other weather events that damaged them. A window is manufactured to see through, clearly. When damage causes the window to fail to function as it was originally designed, it is functional damage and not cosmetic damage.
I’m in no way saying they wouldn’t. Insurance companies cover hail dents in a car even though they don’t affect the primary function.
Their real estate agent, Roxanne O’Keefe, advised them to get a home inspection, but also said an offer with the condition of a home inspection would likely not be accepted, as there was a competing offer.
Gunness and Parmentier argued that prior to purchase, they had asked their real estate agent to ask the selling real estate agent Derek Leippi about the windows. He responded by text, saying: “Some of the more sun exposed windows have faded … the seals are still good.”
Instead of suing the seller they should be suing the Real estate Salespersons according to what is in the article above. They were played by their own Real Estate Salesperson and lied to by the seller’s Real Estate Salesperson.
Oh no, Emmanuel. You see, the agent “recommended” an inspection, but then told their client if they asked for one, their offer would probably not be accepted, lol. That’s how this works now.
Fogged windows are not a cosmetic issue, it is the sign of a defective in the window. Not unlike an A/C unit that stops cooling or a water heater that no longer heats water. None of them came from their manufacturer with those defects. A cosmetic issue is a paint blemish or a mud stain on the front porch or the brick wall.
I agree, windows with broken thermal seals are definitely defects and should be in the report although people usually don’t get money for them, but I have taken temperature readings on windows with broken thermal seals and windows without. I have never seen the temperature off more than a degree and sometimes the windows without good seals were actually warmer in winter. I really don’t see where the gas in between is doing the job.
Fogged windows are very common around here. Maybe our altitude makes them more common. While they might be arguably a cosmetic condition, they are an expensive cosmetic issue and I write them up every time.
“The claimants viewed the residence only on one occasion before they decided to make an offer to purchase it. During the viewing, it was apparent to them that there may be a problem with the windows. They believed that they might have had some ‘film’ on them. The claimants could have chosen to have the windows inspected,” Judge Burnett stated in his judgment.
“The failed window seals, I find, were a defect that would have been easily discoverable through a reasonable inspection. The defendant did nothing to conceal the condition of the windows. All of the windows were readily accessible. Anyone viewing the residence could come to their own conclusions regarding the windows’ condition. As a result, I conclude that the failed window seals were not a latent defect but a patent one.”
Same… Once I mention one (or more) I always say there could be more that weren’t visible.
I don’t thing this is a cosmetic defect but a minor defect because it afects the functionality of the windows. There is a leak which is why the windows fog up. It could be a water leak that then evaporated onto the windows, or, a hot air leak that then turns into moisture when it contacts the indoor’s conditioned air. This will inevitably lead to a mayor defect in the form of moisture damage or energy inefficiency.
Regards wether it’s covered by insurance or not, it depends on the policy. I am a senior adjuster for Citizens, handling appraisals. This is not covered, unless a covered peril first damages the window seal, such as hurricane, or impact from object etc. If the seals are bad because they are old, then the ensuing moisture damage would not be covered. Especially since this kind of issue requires a long time to cause moisture related damage. The CPIC policy excludes moisture damage from a source that has exceeded 14 years in duration. True the court has said the damage fom the first 14 days is covered, but we all know moisture from windows do not cause water damage in 14 days, but on a much longer time scale spanning months or years. This is for most CPIC policies, your policy may differ.
Reporting the presence of fogged window(s) is a component of the SOP. Look it up.
The energy loss is negligible to non-existent from what I’ve read. That was the meaning of my post as that seems to be what most clients are concerned with, except for the cosmetics.
The potential for moisture damage is an ok take though. Albeit, there would have to be a lot of condensation and on a fairly consistent basis.
And just another reason why I don’t classify “defects”. I’m still amused why inspectors want to “classify” them. Is it a software thing? I have the word “deficiency” in my software, but not any categorical context. 
Not real sure. But sometimes I get the feeling inspectors classify and then only include the worst things in their summary. Knowing that few clients look at anything other than the summary, this allows them to stay on the agent’s good side because, hey, only a few things are in the summary. But then they also have their behind covered when the client calls upset, because they have all the other stuff hidden amongst all the filler in the rest of the report. Then they can say “it was in the report, you just didn’t read all 200 pages of it.”
I inspected a home with a pair of doors to the rear deck. One door had a fogged window (failed seal) but the other door was still good. It was cold outside and I could see a very distinct difference in the surface temperature of the failed window. It was letting a lot of energy escape the home.
Window manufacturers fill the gap between the panes with a noble gas to reduce heat transfer. Fogging occurs when the gas leaks out and is replaced with moisture-laden air.
Sample narrative
The window glass was foggy or had condensation droplets inside indicating seal failure was present. Window seals will all eventually fail with age, allowing moisture in between the panes of glass. Seal failure can reduce energy efficiency and obscure the glass’s visibility. Some windows may not show signs of seal failure due to the weather at the time of the inspection or sunlight hitting the window. Weather conditions in the future (high humidity, etc.) may reveal more failed seals than observed at the time of inspection. A review of all windows in the home with the replacement of any affected glass found is recommended to be performed by a window company or glazing contractor.
Window Gas Fills: What Inspectors and Consumers Should Know - InterNACHI®
