InterNACHI in Kansas City Star article on home inspection licensing board corruption.

If anything, he said, the new law’s cap on inspector liability shields inspectors from potentially devastating lawsuits.

**I agree 100%. **

I never took time to understand the Kansas law until now and personally I think if your going to be licensed the Kansas law is one we should all follow. IMO the new 10K cap signed into law does inspectors great justice. No more need for costly E&O. I see Kansas is requiring insurance however is it E&O they require? If so what’s the point of having E&O if your liability is capped at 10K? Many think that they are getting screwed because they lost their liability to the cost of the inspection. Personally, to date I’ve seen to many lawyers laugh at this notion and in a state such as mine “MO” do you really think a contract would hold up to the cost of inspection only? I think not. If your found negligent you could loose your house, shirt, car and so on. Your contract will not hold mainly due to the fact in MO we don’t have any state laws in place so a judge has the sole decision. In Kansas 10K is state law cap. I’m for the Kansas law unless I’m just missing something here. Clue me in Jim.

I’m proud to have InterNACHI on public record for standing against corruption and standing with its members who are forced to deal with it in their home states.

I’m ashamed that there are other national organizations that are remaining silent and assisting those who are harming our profession with their silence.

Thanks, Nick, for standing up for what is right…and standing against what is wrong. I know that your position on these issues may encourage those who have corrupted the registration board to reject NACHI educational and testing products in retaliation … but I am equally assured that you will respond to such foolishness with swift and decisive blows.

Thanks for the support, Nick.

I was impressed with one of the responses to the article.

The lady that discussed how 1 month after the home inspectors pronounced a home safet to occupy - the basement wall collapsed.

In 32 years of inspecting I’ve NEVER heard of OR seen anything like that (oh and I grew up in an excavation construction family that built basements, highways, etc). We need more details from her to verify this is NOT plain old BS.

Who declares any home “safe” to occupy?

In Belleville you must get a occupancy permit. A city code inspector comes out and makes sure nothing is unsafe.

Residents moving into Belleville are advised that a “Certificate of Occupancy” is required to be obtained before the residence can legally be occupied. An inspection of the dwelling unit is conducted by the City to ensure that there are no substantial defects and violations to the “housing code and ordinance” that must be corrected before occupancy is permitted. Critical areas of inspection include the electrical and plumbing systems, exterior and interior structural elements, and other areas that are readily visible.

Do you issue COs billy?

Billy … can you sue the city if the basement wall falls in after your Bellville inspector declares that “nothing is unsafe”?

Billy brings up another valid point. Not to long ago, I was on a national consumer groups web site. They had a complaint section for builders, contractors and home inspectors. When I looked at the HI’s complaint section I discovered MOST inspector complaints were against CODE guys.

BUT they were so NAIVE they had logged the as Home Inspector complaints.

Nope. I don’t inspect in IL.

No idea Jim. I’m sure the city has something good in writing somewhere never investigated city code inspectors. I don’t inspect in IL as you know. However, in their literature it states they inspect the structure so I’m sure someone may have grounds.

The correct answer is “no”.

Like I said never been around one in Belleville and never seen what they inspect. So enlighten us as to why they have no responsibility when inspecting for a CO permit? Why are we held responsible and they are not?


I believe most states have laws stating you cannot sue a City Building Inspector for negligence, I know Arizona has such a statue, as crazy as it may be.

They basically have a free get out of jail card, which I think is ridiculous.

If they choose handing out Certificates of Occupancy as their profession and the house burns down a day later because of wiring installed incorrectly, I believe they should be personally held liable…but their not.

Unbelievable. Wow. Your a licensed state what is your liability cap in Arizonia?

I don’t have any liability cap, but I have E&O…I doubt anybody does anywhere in the country if they find the right attorney to sue regardless of what statutes may be law.

Same reason you can’t sue a police officer for allowing a burglary or a fireman for not saving your kitty. Or you can’t sue the military for allowing your son to be killed. The assumption is that the gov’t is ALWAYS acting for the greater good of the people. So you can’t sue for damages.

It has ALWAYS been the law that you can not sue the government (and by extension, a gov’t employee dutifully executing their duties) - unless they give you permission to sue. Sometimes in rare instances they do give you permission. And it is possible to sue an gov’t agency for not complying with laws that lawmakers said they must comply with.

Maybe some of the lawyers on this forum could explain it further or correct any incorrect statements I may have made.

If most inspectors already abide by the new standards, then what’s the point? (8\)

You can sue the inspector’s boss, though.

Read your code book…particularly the indemnification of building inspectors as recorded in the NEC, IBC and IRC. After you read up on it, ask your question again.