Let me share a personal experience which relates to the issues of potential liability using IR technology.
I purchased an infrared camera and enrolled in the ITC building science course which was to be given about 45 days after my purchase arrived.
I began using my camera on my own home and discreetly used the camera during my home inspections. I found several anomalies that led me to investigate situations further. On one occasion (which I posted on this bulletin board) I entered an attic which would be otherwise not accessible under the standards of practice of home inspection. At this point, I began exceeding the standards of practice in going beyond the “visual inspection”. I discovered a significant structural defect as well as other HVAC mechanical issues which would otherwise gone undetected. So in this case, my liability had substantially increased. However, significant deficiencies which I found overshadowed my increased liability.
On another occasion, two days before attending the building science course I was inspecting a home that had stucco siding on the front and masonite siding on the other three sides. The siding had been inspected by an independent siding inspector and was given a clean bill of health. The real estate agent about shoved the siding inspection report down my throat when I told him that I would make my own assessment. Upon visual observation I saw overflowing gutter issues, gutters and were embedded in the stucco siding at the chimney, cracks in the stucco siding, blistering paint in deteriorated masonite siding, rusted nails, rust stains under the electrical service panel, rust stains at the screed flashing and substantial cracking around window and door framing/drama which have been patched with caulking recently but the cracking had recurred. It had not rained in months prior to the inspection. Further investigation with my moisture meter indicated very slight elevated moisture readings. I discreetly took out my infrared camera again and conducted a scan of all four sides of the house under adverse conditions. A substantial amount of anomalies were observed related and unrelated to moisture intrusion. Though elevated moisture conditions were not present at the time of inspection, deterioration of the building materials changed the density, thus the thermal capacity which can be detected by the IR camera. This is where an electronic moisture meter may not back up your IR evaluation. On the interior of the house I saw numerous anomalies in the ceilings and walls. Again, the attic was not accessible within the scope of practice of home inspection. I exceeded the scope of inspection by entering the attic where I found the source of apparent moisture intrusion at the ceiling. It turned out to be an insulated refrigeration line within the interior walls. The client arrived at the home. I had spent several hours just on the exterior of the home and was far from complete. I took the client aside and asked them what they expected from the home has the siding damage was quite extensive. Where they intending to make any repairs, remodeling etc… They indicated that they wanted a house in move-in condition where no maintenance or repairs would be required. I walked the client through the house showing them the issues that concern me at that point and allow them to view the anomalies through the infrared camera. They made a decision at that point that they would not buy this house and requested me to terminate the inspection. The client-based their failure to purchase the house on deterioration of the siding and potential latent damage to the framing of the house.
With their independent siding inspector report in hand, the seller attempted to file a suit against me while I was attending the building science course. A demand for all of my inspection notes, inspection report and photographs was made by the sellers attorney. I had made no mention of the infrared technology utilized to this point which was the basis for my client to decide not to purchase the property. During the building science course I asked ITC Instructor Scott Wood to look over the thermal scans I had taken during my inspection. I did not want to misinterpret or miss identifying anything as this was likely going to court. On the last day of class Scott spent his lunch time going over my inspection with me. He stated that my interpretation, which was derived from the training I had just received during the course was a good use of infrared technology in home inspection. Upon receiving my certification, I submitted the infrared scans and an infrared report refuting the bogus siding inspector report of the seller. Complaint dismissed!
I certainly would not have wanted to go to court and explain my unprofessional version of how infrared scans induced my client to not purchase the property.
Thanks to an exceptional course by ITC, IR certification and personal verification of my findings by Scott Wood, I was not left to go it alone. Regardless of the facts that I visually observed the deficiencies and verified my observations with electronic moisture detection equipment, I was on my way to court!
I think the $2000 I spent in training expenses to be certified (not to mention the combined cost with the IR camera) was far less than my potential court costs just to answer this frivolous complaint.
The “wow” affect of the infrared report, backed by ITC training/certification completely shut this complaint down.
I think there is a big difference in a home inspection using IR technology compared to a building science thermologist. There are standards of practice, standard operating procedures, scope of inspection pertaining to home inspections. As a building science thermologist, you can separate one from the other. Most state laws say that home inspectors came exceed the standards of practice if they are qualified and licensed as required. You can go outside of the scope of inspection as a building science thermologist without jeopardizing your entire HI SOP by subscribing to the standards expected of a building science thermologist. When you’re infrared camera comes out of its case, you should no longer be performing the task of a simple home inspector.
Can a home inspector get around some of this stuff? Sure.
But like in these two instances when you’re infrared camera entices you to go beyond your SOP by going into the attic where no inspector has been expected to go before we’re is is taking us?
Not only would my use of IR be scrutinized, all of the things that I did that exceeded normal home inspections would have likely been questioned.
Can you be an expert witness without a diploma or certification? Sure.
But it’s difficult to refute an internationally recognized organization/certification like ITC. Going the extra mile seems to be better than relying on Las Vegas odds!
I will reiterate that field experience is more important than attending a class. You can’t learn everything in the classroom. But this does not forgo the need for formal training in an area where there is no point of reference to formulate on-the-job training.
Education is theory, experience is real.