I am very pleased to announce the opening of CalNACHI.

Misc. Discussion
21

In Illinois, HIs have a fiduciary responsibility, by law.

But one has to remember, it’s not if we miss some defect, it’s if we miss a defect that we should have found (visual inspection only).

Sure, people always expect us to find stuff that we couldn’t possibly find, but the license law has an SOP and that also acts to protect the HI, legally.

Also, in Illinois, limitation of liability clauses in HI agreements are void. There is no limitation of liability protection. BUT, I still include it in my agreement (at my lawyers direction) because my insurance carrier wants it. When you think about it, a limitation of liability clause is an insult to the client. You’re asking for their money, but having them sign a paper that says that you are, first and formost, worried about your own butt, nit in serving their needs.

There is no contracition involved with being impartial and having fiduciary. The mentioned client, who wanted a false report, did not know what fiduciary means. Not an argument, just ignorance.

I am proud to have fiduciary responsibility. Realtors have it, why not HIs? I would not hire an HI who did not.

I don’t run my business from a position of trying to cover my a** first. i work to cover the client, because if I am doing a good job for the client, I am also doing a good job for myself.

As I see it, fiduciary is the difference between a mere “tradesman” and a professional.

Just my opinion;

22

When the word “fiduciary” first appeared I considered only the denotation (Latin "fiduciarius, from “fidere,” of or relating to or involving a confidence or trust), but deleted the word on the advice of a California attorney. It’s still a matter of ethical and legal debate here in California, as I see it is in Will Decker"s state.

23

From the CalNACHI SOP of items required to report on:

Where can I buy a GFCI capacity meter or how does one calculate that?

24

Why on earth would you want to reprt the capacity?
I assume this is refering to the leakage trip level but who knows?

A listed device is required to trip at 5 mA. Why should anyone be verifiying that fact?

25

Well, actually I don’t want to report that but the SOP says I must. :mrgreen:

26

Not unless you move to California and join CALNACHI. Maybe they give a free meter when you join;-)

27

Will certainly pass this on to the committee. Thanks. Perhaps it should state “functionality” and not capacity.

28

Not to change the subject, but didn’t RR have a lot to do with helping this new chapter get off the ground?

29

The CALNachi SOP looks kind of familiar.

“Rejected once. Rejected right.”:wink:

30

Parts at Radio Shack

Ohm’s law

A meter - some wire - a plug - and a pot

Do your own math or don’t even get to this level of testing

rlb

31

James, I have read the CALNachi SOP, is it perfect, no, probably not, however as we all understand doing business in the land of fruits and nuts is not the same as many other parts of the country, rather than pooh-poohing the effort of those who have to work in that litigeous climate, maybe it would be a good idea for members of the national ESOP committee, to limmit themselves to offering constructive criticism.

BTW, I like the more expansive style of the CALnachi document, the biggest issue that we all face is getting our client to understand what thier realistic expectations of us are.

Regards

Gerry

32

NACHI has an SOP, Gerry. NACHI members who decide to join CALINachi are encouraged to continue to use it.

We are unaware of any case in California brought to trial in which the NACHI SOP failed to withstand the scrutiny of a plaintiff’s attorney. To rewrite the SOP for NACHI members in California does not appear to have a purpose that justify changing a document that appears to be working very well.

33

James,

firstly I believe that our members are allowed to use any SOP that is “substancialy similar to” NACHI’s SOP. secondly I am not personaly aware of any case that has been soley defended buy the use of any associations SOP. Feel free to quote case law (any juristdiction) to correct me.

Regards

Gerry

34

The original explanation that was provided by the author answers your question, I think.

Likewise, I would agree with Keith that an SOP will be submitted as evidence (by the plaintiff or defendant) to show what the agreed upon duties of the inspector actually were. I do not think that it will be the “sole” determination, but it can play a part.

While I have not polled the entire committee, those of us who have spoken do agree that this SOP is not “substantially” close to NACHI’s. In fact, it has been suggested that it can be harmful and we are advising home inspectors who may consider using it to take a hard look at what it actually says…beyond the grandoise selection of text.

Read what is required in inspecting and reporting on the chimney, for instance.

In a highly litigious state such as California, I personally find the language and requirements of the CALNachi SOP to border upon suicidal.

35

James, I agree any SOP may play a part, but as any contract term(s) can be disalowed but any court/jury. My personal feeling is that the more restrictive the SOP the better we are protected by it given that we are in compliance with it.

Regards

Gerry

36

Gerry,

The more restrictive the SOP the more likely you will lose in court, as compliance is harder to achieve. Any actuarial will bear this out. This is precisely why the carriers want to know which SOP you follow. It goes directly to risk. There is no way around this as fact.

Now, as to change…While change to an SOP, where warranted, can be beneficial, change for the sake of change (as in this case) can be disasterous.

It is clear, based on the fact that the CalNACHI SOP is the same SOP written in a vacuum by Keith some months back, begs for it to be scrutinized by California inspectors.

As California is touted by many as being one of the most litigous states in the union, one must seriously question the need for any expanse to an already ratified and accepted set of standards as currently exists among the 3 largest HI orgs in the land.

More perturbing is the flowery language, which is not necessary. Keep the requirements simple, and straight forward. We do not have that in this case. In fact, it looks as if the person who wrote it needs to re-review and modify the entire document.

Finally, and even though CalNACHI is a separate entity, it contains the NACHI name and modification of the InterNACHI symbol. As such, I believe that the NACHI SOP is the standard, unless CalNACHI drops the affilliation.

Substantial compliance is one thing. This SOP is far different from the NACHI version, and does not represent substantial compliance, IMO.

Aside from this, Keith has stated that these docs were a long time oin the making. If this is true, then why is the SOP the same as the one brought forth by Dr. Swift for NACHI some months back? It almost appears as if an agenda is being brought forth. he couldnt have it incorporated at NACHI, so another org was started. I’d still like my question answered as to who owns the verbiage used in the SOP, and is it part of the public domain now. Who actually owns these words?

37

This is interesting.

Looks like Russell Ray will be forced to abandon the kickback scheme he calls “Referral Rewards”.

38

Dont pick on RR.

I wonder if he has anything to do with this. Russel is up on legal harangings in his home state. I expect him to weigh in shortly.

39

Joe, it’s way past my bedtime so we can discuss this tomorrow

Nite

Gerry

40

He’s very proud of this old kickback scheme he has tailored toward home inspections.

You pay me $350 for a home inspection. I will give you $25 of those dollars back for each referral who pays me for a home inspection.

Under the CALNachi COE, however, this will be illegal. The buyer is certainly involved in the transaction and paying them money or other consideration now violates a code of ethics.