InterNACHI Inspection Agreement Section 6

Ryan, yes. I’ll edit it. You are right, that’s what I meant.

Bert you should have used the word shall instead. Has more legal standing. It’s not a suggestion, it’s a command, “DON’T MESS WITH MY STUFF!!!” :laughing::rofl::laughing: LOL
Making it into a meme for JJ though should be optional… HEHEHEHE.

1 Like

I filled it in with $57,300.95 once and the client didn’t even ask about it. I think most don’t read the agreement much less understand this section either, initially.

2 Likes

Back around 2005, I started using a clause in my contracts that I think many other people or groups have adapted since then. … By the way during the time I’ve offered this 3 people took me up on it and I’ve never had an issue with any of them. This paragraph had a Box they initialed to ACCEPT or DECLINE it.

The Customer understands they may buy an Inspection without “Limitation Of Liability” as provided for in our BASIC inspection by paying an extra fee and getting a “Technically Expansive Inspection” . The Technically Expansive Inspection Report will be delivered to the Customer within 20 working days after the Inspection Company has performed the “Basic Inspection” and then retained other specialists and performed any specialized testing or analysis. The “Technically Expansive Inspection” fee is $2,450 or 1% of the Sales Price (whichever is more) plus the “Basic Inspection” fee and includes a limited warranty.

1 Like

So this is interesting. I figured now would be a good time to take a look at the new agreements @gromicko released a few weeks ago. The option to pay a higher fee to eliminate the provision has been removed, at least in the MN agreement. I did not check others. Is this no longer best practice to offer this alternative :man_shrugging:.

Anyone else look at the new agreements for their state and find the higher-fee option removed? Comments concerns, questions? Anyone leaving it in or taking it out based on this?

I checked the for Florida today and saw the same. Was also wondering if I should just use the new one.

1 Like

We don’t use it. But someone up in the thread made a good point. When it is in there, it forces the client to understand what level of liability they are agreeing to.

1 Like

@ruecker this is what I was referring to.

1 Like

Yep, read that one and agree with it. That’s why I was surprised to see it removed from the new agreements.

Maybe if I send out the bat signal to @gromicko and/or @jdenneler we can get an explanation of its removal.

image

1 Like

It’s a good question. We did not include it because in the states that still permit liquidated damages/limitation of liability clauses, there is no verifiable correlation between offering a “higher end” inspection for a larger fee and a court enforcing the clause. I began seeing it when some state courts were issuing opinions regarding their use in home inspection agreements. I saw it as an attempt at an end-around. It does not appear to have any effect on the enforcement of the clause as written. I also do not recall any instance where the presence of the “higher end” inspection clause caused a court to refuse to enforce the limitation. Whether or not you want to include it is a business decision. I can state that as far as the InterNACHI insurance program goes we take no position on whether you include that language or not. It’s entirely up to you.

Most of the questions I’ve been getting via email have been mediation and arbitration. This was refreshing.

Joseph W. Denneler, Esquire

Partner

INSPECTOR CLAIM MANAGEMENT, LLC

jdenneler@icmtpa.com

Direct: 484-273-2742
Fax: 877-488-8285

1016 W 8th Avenue
Suite A
King of Prussia, PA 19406

If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, please notify us immediately at (877) 488-1112 or via email at claims@icmtpa.com. The information contained in this communication, including attachments, may represent non-public information intended exclusively for the designated recipient(s). The information may be strictly confidential and/or protected legally by the attorney/client privilege and/or or other legally recognized privileges as well. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please take notice that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

2 Likes

Thank you for the clarification Joseph. I had removed it from my agreement but was considering putting it back in until I seen it was removed from the new agreements. I wasn’t a big fan of it to begin with so it is nice to know I am not taking on additional liability by leaving it out.

3 Likes