Check this standard text

Comments solicited on following standard text. There is a “gotcha” to it. I’ll post it later. :wink:

“The composition roof has worn flashing and two missing shingles. Much of the remainder of the roof appears undamaged. Replacement of the entire roof is recommended as the only way to guard against defects not found.”.

“The concrete slab has slight movement at the corner of the garage. Much of the remainder of the foundation appears undamaged. Piering of the entire foundation is recommended as the only way to guard against defects not found.”

What do you mean by “Standard Text”???

I have never seen “Standard Text” before.

Standard text aka boilerplate. It is wording that would be used on almost every report.

Sounds more like, “I found a little problem, best rebuild that whole area just in case”.

By who John?

That it is Boilerplate, in and of itself is not the problem.

The problem is they are poorly worded Narratives…IMO. :smiley:

Replace the entire roof because two shingles are gone? I would be embarrassed to put that in my report. As for the garage slab in my area they are poured separate from the foundation and are cracked all the time.

Same here

The roof narrative sounds like a CYA narrative more than something that would get written. I mean… if the roof has a defect that is likely to have been the cause of the missing shingles such as staples, poor fasteners etc… then maybe the statement of replacement of roof etc is valid.

The slab narrative is faulty. Suggesting piering, helical devices or whatever else from what may be perceived as some defect or another is getting into providing remedies for significant defects. That’s not a great idea IMO.
“The faucet drips and may need a cartridge/washer etc” has it’s place… saying that a slab has slight movement and needs XXXX to prevent future defects is a goofball idea.

How is the movement SLIGHT? Did you measure the slab’s level? And so on and so on.

Narratives suggesting that we can measure a foundations performance in the absence of a significant defect as a HI is a set up for failure.

OK guys and gals. I warned there was a catch 22. Here it is. This is regarding the dome that collapsed in Minnesota. The engineers said:

“Engineers wrote the full replacement of the 10-acre roof was the only way to guard against another deflation from defects they might not have found. Several panels ripped under the weight of the snow, but many others appeared undamaged.”

Here is the link.

I found it amusing.

The stadium has a fiberglass fabric roof that is self-supported by air-pressure.

I see no problem with the engineers report in this case. It has nothing in common with the type of structures we inspect so no comparison to report wording should be done.

I liked the old inspection they had that found some holes and they recommened the holes be monitored to see if they get any bigger.

Guess I am not clear but your missing the irony and the point.

Insurance is going to pay so the engineer says replace it all because I am not sure I found all the defects. Its a totally useless engineering comment. Its stupid; but if they got paid it is brilliant.

In some ways it is similiar to home inspection. If an inspector arrives at a home with very minor hail damage and the owner says “the insurance company is going to replace the roof” do you think the inspector will disagree even if the roof is in excellent condition?

I just found the article to be funny. BTW how many home inspectors, Realtors or lawyers would they have to put in that stadium to inflate it? :stuck_out_tongue:


The level of caution an engineer or engineering company will use depends on several factors. Here are the top three in my opinion:

  • The level of complexity of the design
  • Documented history of past performance
  • Potential for loss of life

The last one trumps all others. In the case of this air supported dome the engineers have to consider the level of design complexity which is high, the documented history of this happening which is nil, and the potential for loss of life which is high. So when uncertainty is high error on the side of safety.

Residential structures are at the low end of the complexity scale, there are thousands of years of documented performance data so the potential for loss of life is very low. Which is why the need for such extreme disclaimers for home inspectors is not needed.

If I read these comments in my inspection report, I would demand a refund of the inspection fee.

Heh… that’s another way of looking at it…

“I noticed one of the windows was difficult to operate, you may consider cleaning the tracks/replacing rollers etc OR Replace ALL the windows as this is the only way to guard/ensure that the windows will function properly.”

An entire new way of reporting can be created.

Unfortunately, it isn’t new. I have seen it.
I recall getting a call a few years ago to come out and look at a home that had been inspected by another company.
Windows- The living room window crank did not operate. It is recommended that due to their age, all of the windows in the home should be changed to hurricane rated windows, immediately, to prevent any further damage to the structure.

It got worse from there on.