home inspector sued for $13,000 leaky basement "advice"

(john bubber) #1

Judge is wrong imo, the judge said he found NO EVIDENCE??
Home inspector out $13,000 for leaky foundation advice Canadian Underwriter
How ya figure? Buyers took possession October and got water in November and… lol the home inspector noted there was 1 or more foundation CRACKS, aka existing defects!!! In my expert waterproofing opinion, you can’t get much more evidence than that sheesh.

The inspector messed up imo when he apparently said, “MONITOR the crack (s)”… instead of telling/noting to have cracks properly waterproofed. as my badling ugly azz has stated before. The onus is on the SELLERS imo

Ya shouldn’t tell buyers to MONITOR foundation wall cracks, inform 'em to reduce offer and so that they’d have the cash to get cracks waterproofed, just my 2 cents.

I do see where inspectors who disagree with me are coming from… the home inspector DID note there were foundation cracks, existing defects. and there was a chance of water damage because of them. ****, why not skip that stuff and just say/note you recommend they get crack (s) correctly waterproofed, cover that azz!

Many sellers, flippers put drywall or paneling against foundation walls to intentionally hide/conceal existing defects, cracks in walls etc and they also will patch over and paint existing cracks to try n hide them.

(William B. Ogletree, TREC License #22530) #2

I agree that telling the buyers to monitor the cracks was not the best way to address it. “Consult with qualified specialist as to how to best address this situation” would have been better IMO.

I disagree STRONGLY with your suggestion that the inspector should coach them on price negotiations. Inspectors don’t like it when Realtors intrude into their domain. Why on earth would inspectors tread so heavily on the toes of the agent by telling the buyers to reduce their offer. Sounds like a great way to get chewed out and blackballed by the agent, and it is none of the inspector’s business at any rate. A better way may be to say “budget for improvements to correct this situation”. The client can then take that advice and do as they chose.

(James H. Bushart) #3

There are two kinds of basements: (a) those that have water intrusion, and (b) those that will have water intrusion. The only unknown variables are the date in which the water will actually appear and its point(s) of entry.

A second headache for homeowners is the fact that their insurance policy excludes coverage for damage caused by water outside of the home that enters the basement, and any costs associated with damage caused by rain or groundwater entering the basement is coming out of their pocket. Always expect, under that condition, the homeowner to seek indemnification from the home inspector, seller, salesman, or any combination of the three to cover their loss when their insurance company will not.

When you combine these probabilities it defies logic for a home inspector who is a part of a real estate transaction to make any type of assurance at all regarding a basement other than the fact that it exists. All basement anomalies noted in the report should include a recommendation for repair prior to occupancy. Recommendations for “monitoring” should include snorkeling instructions so that the monitoring can be accomplished safely.

(john bubber) #4

with you on that Mr Bill but i didn’t mean quite what i wrote, like Trump right? lolololl What i mean is, screw the monitor the crack stuff so that they, on their own, could reduce offer if they choose

(john bubber) #5

James, in this case from what i read, the HI did note that there were existing F wall cracks that could leak so that’s more/better than what i see from some others who don’t say that and instead tell them to raise and slope the grade etc, Judge is wrong here, just my shtttty lil 2 cents