68-0. Soon to be 69-0.
Congratulations InterNachi on an important win.
Congratulations. Great work!
Hopefully this can be used to set president.
What other litigation is underway, Nick? You mention, Soon to be 69-0.
Way to play the Pennemite card. 
Lotta chit can happen in two years! Thanks Nick!
Seems I’ll play the Devils Advocate on this one. If the home buyer’s claims in the lawsuit are true (reading the supreme court document) then the Inspector did not win this case based on merit but instead a technicality from a truly FU PA limit of liability law. That’s absolutely nothing to be cheering about!
The PA limit of liability law, and apparently other appropriate laws, does nothing to protect the consumer from this type of reported egregious behavior by an Inspector. In reality this case would be a good example for repealing that 1 year limit of liability law. This buyer may never have known that the problems existed had it not been for an incident that caused major issues a little over one year past the inspection. Now the buyer is saddled with the cost of all the repairs to repair the damage but also the repairs to correct major issues the buyer claimed the Inspector missed. If the buyer ever sells, and a competent Inspector inspects the home, they would be saddled with all the other repairs just to be able to sell the home. This is just another case of why so many home buyers have such a bad opinion about Inspectors.
You’ve posted the court case documents but how about the actual inspection report and on site documentation? I suspect if that was provided then the claims made by the buyer may well be true?
So unlike everyone else in the world (including lawn mower manufacturers and new home builders), you want inspectors to be in a special category where they have no statute of limitations? Once they do an inspection, they are responsible forever or until they die?
The duly elected legislators in that buyer’s state disagree… and so did the Supreme Court, thankfully.
We’ll probably never see the report, but for the armchair inspector, here is the property listing from 2017. It’s a brick four square built in 1925. From the Google street view from the parking lot next to the house, there appears to be a rear addition with white vinyl siding. I suspect this is where the problems were. The addition also has very low ceilings. If the crawlspace was inaccessible, I would hope that the inspector would have disclaimed it.
Show me any State that has no statute of limitations on a business for DTPA, contract law, etc., claims/lawsuits. Each may vary but here in Texas any situation has a 4 year discovery period and an additional 1 year to take action. In the case of an Inspector here, and anywhere in the US, if they properly performed their job which does include proper reporting that is their defense. So your questions are ignorant ones and not expected from you.
Of all the people in this country I would have expected Nick Gromicko to do everything he could to advance the Inspection Industry in a good light! Nobody would expect you to turn down a request for help, even in this case, but publishing the dirty laundry in the publicly viewable section of the BB was a bad decision. None of us Inspectors as well as none of the general public viewing this has any information other than what was posted. That information does not look good for the Inspector, this organization, and the Inspection Industry as a whole.
I would fully expect that you did not just take up this case without even looking at the underlying information and instead only look at and take it from the perspective of the limitation of liability technicality. So can you provide the word of Nick Gromicko that the buyer in this case was lying about the conditions that were reported to be missed at that inspection? Of course, and again, it would be more convincing to see the actual report, on site documentation, etc.
If the homeowner would have found the issues within one year, should they have paid the claim?
Thank you for posting that. Yes according to the SC document it was the addition that was being disputed. If the Inspector properly disclaimed the crawl area under it then I would have expected that would be the defense and not the 1 year LL clause.
In the doc it states that a plumber identified the issues when he was there to repair the broken pipe under the main bath but did not state how he/she saw under the addition. The addition has a raised deck on it at the rear and a street view shows the visible side window high off the ground. I expect the siding was run down to the ground to cover the raised floor structure. There may have been access either from under the deck or even from the basement side?
Again we don’t have the report and on site documentation to know what occurred but what we have does not, in my opinion, bode well for the Inspector. Quite possibly the only defense was the 1 year limit of liability law?
The disclaimed crawl space (if it was) may not have been acceptable in this case but the 1 year limitation was. A careful reading of the decision indicates that the inspection occured in May 2017 while the frozen pipe problem didn’t occur until the winter of 2018-2019. Well over the one year limitation. I also wonder why the pipe didn’t freeze during the 2017-2018 winter and whether or not the plumber was gaslighting the whole deal. Hopefully his [the plumber] observations were in writing and submitted as evidence. Guess you’d have to be there so we’ll never know.
This morning, when I read this thread, I had a similar thought as you did, I had to run to an inspection so I erased what I wrote, not wanting to stir a hornet’s nest and leave.
I understand protecting your turf, and “winning”, but to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."
I am required to report on foundations. “The inspector shall describe: A. the type of foundation; and B. the location of the access to the under-floor space. III. The inspector shall report as in need of correction: –>>A. observed indications of wood in contact with or near soil;”
The addition was apparently wood piers with no foundation? I’m unsure, but the bottom line, the inspector probably blew it. I’m not saying he should be fined out of business, but it seems like this isn’t the hill to have the Mariachi dance on.
Yes, they should have found it within the first year, no we shouldn’t have old reports out there haunting us forever. It seems though that the damage was the fruit of the poisoned tree and that properly reporting on foundation and ducting in the addition may have either led to repairs or the buyer moving on.
You have raised some good points. It is possible that conditions were such that a competent inspector would have been able to identify material defects during the inspection. The problem though is that things do change over time.
I have been involved in many disputes between real estate buyers and sellers. I am most often hired by the lawyer representing the buyer. The question to be answered is what is the likelihood that the seller could have lived in the house without knowing of the defect in question and for how long? Similarly, how long could the new owner have lived in the house without discovering the defect. If neither the seller nor the buyer were aware of the defect, is it reasonable to expect that the inspector should have identified the defect.
My cases almost never involve blame being placed on the inspector. The inspector”s report is incidental, at most. It is most often the case that the blame is being placed on the seller by the buyer. Sometimes there are chronic conditions that exist that the seller was unaware of, and the inspector would not have discovered during a routine non-invasive inspection. While the condition may have existed at the time of the inspection, it may not have sufficiently manifested itself to be discovered during a routine inspection. That’s one reason that time has to be taken into account.
You could go in for a routine physical examination and your doctor might tell you that everything looks OK, even though you have undetectable cancerous cells forming. The cancer may be at a detectable level a year or two, or three years later. If your doctor did due diligence at the time of your initial examination based on current technology and understanding, should the doctor be held liable for failing to diagnose the cancer that was not detectable at the time of the examination?
It is human nature to want to want to assign blame. There have to be reasonable limits though. I have often had to tell my clients that it is possible that a particular condition could have existed for years without having been noticed. A one year limit may seem reasonable to some and unreasonable to others, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. However, most material defects will manifest themselves in a relatively short time, usually less than one year.
From a home inspector’s point of view, considering that a home inspection is a snapshot of a home’s condition at a particular point in time, a year is a very long time. Take, for example, a furnace control board. It can fail at any time. It can fail literally one day after an inspection, without there being any evidence of an impending failure.
My point is that there should be liability limitations for practical reasons. In some cases a year may be too long, but in other cases, it may not be long enough. Where do we draw the line? As an inspector, my opinion of where to draw the line is at the visible conditions at the time of the inspection. If a material defect went unnoticed by a buyer for more than a year, is it reasonable to expect that a home inspector should have noticed it in a typical inspection of four hours or less? I am inclined to side with the inspector.
Me too. A deep AI search revealed that the 2018-2019 winter season in Titusville, PA was warmer than the previous season. Something else changed. Due to the damaged HVAC ductwork, it was essentially a conditioned crawlspace. I think maybe the occupants decided that it was too costly to heat the addition in the wintertime, which resulted in the pipes freezing. That’s negligence of the owner.
I do understand your points and Nick Gromicko can end this whole discussion as I indicated above. I do fully expect that he and/or his legal team has viewed the underlying inspection documentation, at least the report, and can answer the following two questions I posed previously. This can be very important for the viewing public not in this profession as this was placed in the public section.
- Was there no access to the area under the addition/point of problems?
- Were the buyer’s claims completely false and nothing more than frivolous?
There were two main claims in the lawsuit. This is from the PA Supreme Court decision that was referenced in the original post.
During the winter of 2018-2019, a water pipe in the Property froze and burst
beneath the primary bathroom. Id. ¶ 14. A plumber repaired the pipe and discovered
that the addition to the Property was built without a foundation over bare ground supported
only by wooden posts. Id. ¶ 16. According to Gidor, the lack of foundation exposed the
bathroom pipes to the elements, which caused the pipes to freeze and burst. Id. ¶ 17.
She also discovered that the vinyl ductwork on the Property was not rated for exterior
use, which allowed animals to chew through it, leading to infestation on the Property. Id.
¶ 18.
Reading that document in full this case was not won on the merits that the Inspector performed their job properly and the complaints are baseless. Instead this was won on a pure technicality that a one year statute of limitations had expired and the buyer no longer has a legal right to recourse.
Note in that paragraph that a Plumber found the issues claimed by the buyer while repairing a problem that was alleged to have occurred as a result of the method of construction. We do not know how the Plumber gained access to that area to view the alleged defects but there appears to have been some type of general access. If there was no access to that area then I fully expect that would have been a major portion of the defense along with the statute of limitations of one year.
One more item to consider about potential access to that new addition. I may live in the land of slab homes but I’m just a Damn Yankee Transplant to Texas and come from the Land of Basements up North. If you look at the listing pictures that Richard provided in the link above (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/805-N-Monroe-St-Titusville-PA-16354/78601674_zpid/) the HVAC ductwork is all under the floor as is typical up North and in some damn dumb locations! In the kitchen it is in front of the sink. In a bedroom it is at a door opening. One of the complaints was the use of ductwork was incorrect. They had to get ductwork to that addition and it most likely followed the same concept of under the floor. There had to have been some type of access to run the ductwok under the raised floor. How did it get there?
We can look to the buyer’s Attorney and have to expect they would not take this buyer down a rabbit hole if the claims were not true since the case was doomed from the start due to the limit of liability issue. If that were true I would fully expect the Attorney would have been dressed down by the court, possibly sanctioned, or even worse?
We can look at the aspect that “things” (conditions) do change over time and unfortunately many frivolous lawsuits are for that reason. However I highly doubt that buyer spent very large sums of money to change the foundation and ductwork that was supposedly without problems!
Next we look at the Inspector aspect and the analogy to the medical profession. Go to that Inspector’s WEB site and read his qualifications. He advertises a much, much higher degree of education and experience than the average Home Inspector. As a consumer getting ready to buy what is (at least this buyer) the most expensive thing of their life they may well have gravitated to his services as a result of that advertisement. After all as a consumer you would expect that type of person would be able to identify potential problems and use a great deal more care inspecting and reporting.
Looking at the home that did appear to be an addition to the rear. It does not matter when it was added as that does not change its status as an addition. I would have expected (I do it myself) that Inspector would have either taken the care to review that addition to the best of their ability or added disclaimers why he could not fully inspect it and make recommendations to get it inspected. That’s simple and plain CYA and I don’t dispute that type of action. So did he disclaim it and if so for what reason?
Yes human nature is to want to assign blame. But reasonable people realize when they point that finger three more may be pointing back at them. Additionally Attorney’s don’t like taking losing cases if for no other reason that their reputation would be harmed so they are somewhat of a check and balance against truly frivolous lawsuits.
As for time limits on liability as I previously stated I am not aware of any State that allows claims to made forever. Others can chime in but there are typical limits to how long a person has to make any claims and Pennsylvania is no different. Notwithstanding any Inspector that is properly performing their job really should not be worrying about a future lawsuit. Also that is the purpose of E&O insurance which in this case Pennsylvania required Home Inspectors to carry by law.
So is the buyer wrong and the Inspector right? Or is the Inspector wrong and the buyer right? Again Nick Gromicko no doubt has the ability to put this to rest and quite frankly should since it was placed in the public section of the forum. It may well go a long way to helping the public understand the value of our profession. Also Pennsylvania is a non-licensed State for Home Inspectors. All they have to do, among other lesser requirements, is belong to a reputable Home Inspector Association and be in good standing with them.
As far as consumer protections, a year is a long time for a snapshot-in-time inspection with no warranties. How long must an inspector carry a home on his back?
You mentioned 4 years in TX. It is still an arbitrary and subjective timeline.
The reason this lawsuit is not about what the inspector missed is that the inspector should not have to defend himself in perpetuity. The same goes for the seller. In the end, the buyer must assume some risk.
The buyer is suing under the Pennsylvania unfair trade practices and consumer protection law. For real estate that is a 4 year time frame not unlike here in Texas. IN PA though they have to take action within that 4 years. Here they have 4 years just for discovery. So you are way off base that the Inspector has to defend themselves “in perpetuity”. Had the buyer tried to sue at 4 years and 3 months instead of 1 year and 3 months the results would be the same, most likely not even make it to the courts if the Attorney is honest.
As for your warranty comment no inspection, regardless what State it is performed in, is truly warranted by the Inspector themselves for any length of time or any reasonable length of time. I don’t warrant my inspections for any time period at all. I just perform the inspection and write the report properly. I carry that inspection on my back for 4 years since that is the consumer protection time limit. I also do not worry about being sued because if you perform and report properly that is your defense.
BTW as a side note any Inspector in fear of getting sued after they leave the business can obtain tail E&O coverage. They should have (Pennsylvania requires it) E&O insurance anyhow.
Every timeline out there is “arbitrary and subjective” so that statement means nothing.
Now I will repeat quote what you stated.
So with that statement do you believe that an Inspector who commits an egregious error in their inspection, regardless of the reason why but specifically due to negative reasons on their part, should not be held responsible for it??
As additional questions to that statement you made do you feel the buyer should not rely on the Inspectors experience and ability claims and instead treat all Inspectors as idiots who do not know what they are doing? If so then why have Inspectors at all?
That’s ridiculous. I never implied that.
One year, four years, or ten years is an arbitrary period of time, and through the courts, the community has now defined one year as reasonable and prudent.
You have no way of knowing whether this inspector was negligent. The argument never got to that because there are protections for both businesses and consumers. The play field has boundaries, as it should.
Good on Nick for posting this. Not everyone is going to consider this a loss for the consumer. Many will consider it reasonable and fair.