I am a new inspector and new to InterNACHI. On the residential home inspection agreement that Internachi provides its members, in the limitation of liability and damages clause it states: If you wish to eliminate this liquidated damages provision, we are willing to perform the inspection for an increased fee of $___, payable in advance.
My question is is this something that’s required to be offered in most states? I could not find anything online stating that it was required or not required on the agreement. Basically I do not wish to offer this on my pre inspection agreement if I don’t have to.
How many of you have something similar in your agreements? Thank you for any info.
Morning, Alex.
1: Welcome to InterNACHI.
2: Congratulations on becoming a Certified Professional Inspector at InterNACHI.
I feel you are misinterpreting the Legal clause.
Best to reach out to InterNACHI legal team or better yet retain Joe Ferry Claims Intercept. This would be solid advice seeing you are willing to open yourself and your company to needless liability.
A Limitation of Liability subject clause allows two or more parties ‘to attempt to ‘allocate risk.’ A process of identifying said risk and determining how and to what extent they should be shared’ rather than transferring said risks wholesale to parties who are unable to bear them.
It, the clause, if accepted, is multi pronged legal clause and can be immense in scope. You would need a professional team enumerating what risks are involved during every inspection and carry that risk for an predetermined amount of time.
For every structure, system and component of a residence you inspect, a: Parties can limit the amounts owed by one to the other, b: can limit the type of damages due, or c: can limit the type of claims that can be brought.
It boggles the mind why you even want to go there.
The PIA, Property Inspection Agreement, is a legal document offer freely to InterNACHI inspectors. Its a legal gift. Accept it in manner to which it is intended. To protect InterNACHI CPI’s from needless, unwarranted, unfounded liability.
If you wish to retain your own legal consultants or an attorney, by all means do so. But also be prepared for the costs you will incur along the way.
I must have interpreted it wrong. I read that last sentence as “for a fee, we will allow (client) to buy their way out of being held to our liquidated damages clause”. Opening us up to more risk than if that sentence was taken out.
I understand it is meant for a dollar amount to be entered in. What I don’t understand is how this helps me in any way because it seems to allow the client to not be held to the limitation to liability clause. Also, do you base the amount entered off of a percentage of the houses value?
The reason for that section of the agreement comes from litigation history. Many courts have voided the limitation of liability (cost of inspection) sections because that limitation was deemed to be arbitrary. This section allows for a negotiated limit of liability on the inspector or inspection company and removes the perception of a predetermined limit of liability imposed by the inspector or inspection company.
You are free delete it if you like. Your other option would be to consult with a contract lawyer and be guided by their advise.
Hope this helps
