Home Inspector Ordered To Pay Buyer!

From that article you posted I’d have to agree that the inspector did not meaningfully communicate the issue noted as the judge said.

Another OAHI inspector. What a ding dong. All he had to do was participate in www.nachi.org/buy and there would be zero damages. You can’t win a lawsuit unless you can prove damages and www.nachi.org/buy relieves consumers of damages. He’s a member of CAHPI too.

Basically comes down to inspector noted a problem, told client about problem, but didn’t put the problem in the report.

The lesson for the rest of us is: if you see it, put it in the report.

And if you don’t see it, how are you supposed to put it in the report? Face it, there is only one thing every home inspector should be doing: www.nachi.org/buy

First sentence in third paragraph describes exactly why he got sued, and why he missed the defect…

"The inspection took about an hour to complete"

Good point Michael:

Very true.

Nick how is the B.B program going to prevent a lawsuit if the buyer wants to keep the home?

This article is from a few years ago I read below in the comments? Did the inspector not have an agreement limiting his liability to the fee paid? Either way I hope he had insurance.

Because you need to prove 4 things to prevail in a lawsuit: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages. If you fail to prove ANY ONE of these, you can’t prevail in court. All I would have had to do is offer to buy the entire home back… full refund… return the product. And if the buyer refuses to sell, he/she has to shut his/her face.

Yes, my thoughts too :roll:

If it’s important enough to discuss, it goes in the report.

Interesting. Has this held up in court yet?

I don’t know about the Buy Back program specifically, but…

The concept of a person who has suffered damages has the obligation to mitigate their damages has been upheld by the courts many times.

So it would make sense that if a buyer threatened to sue, the offer was made to buy back the home, and the buyer refused, the buyer would have a much tougher time proving they were harmed because they turned down the offer to mitigate their problem.

No. That’s the point. It makes the complaint go “poof” long before it gets that far. A plaintiff’s attorney is an officer of the court. He/she won’t even file a suit if he/she knows that damages can’t be proven.

Why do you think we launched our own E&O insurance program: www.nachi.org/insurance THERE ARE NO BIG JUDGEMENTS IN OUR INDUSTRY ANY LONGER.

I know we are happy this did not happen to an InterNACHI inspector but it easily could. The buy back program is a good idea but it can and will happen (likely already has).

That depends on where you live, it does not always fly. This is from our SOP in Wisconsin

Looks like he had an agreement.