Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
You guys have been real quiet about Kansas Bill 2100. If you don’t know its a Bill introduced by a Legislator that is a Trial Attorney. Its sole purpose is to make it illegal for a Home Inspector to use language in a Service Contract or Service Agreement that would “Limit their Liability” or “Disclaim What They Can or Can’t Do”.
The Trial Attorneys, Kansas Association of Realtors and Builders Association have got behind it and are pushing it. The House of Representatives Committee that reviewed it was made up of 16 members. Of those 12 were Trial Attorneys. It FLEW through that Committee and PASSED in the House by about 4 or 5 votes.
The Senate Committee now reviewing it is made up of about 11 Members, of which 5 are Trial Attorneys. If it passes - you can bet your butt that these folks will try it in Missouri too. Guys, on the surface if you didn't know anything about what we do - this Bill sounds like vitally needed Legislation to protect consumers from sleezy fly-by-night HI's.
In actuality its about Lawyers removing a FIREWALL between us and every sleezy Lawyer or home owner that wants to sue SOMEBODY for every frivilous thing that goes wrong in a house.
Get off your A$$$$ and write or email or call your senators.
(b) Any clause or provision in an agreement or contract issued by
a home inspector for a home inspection report which contains language
limiting or disclaiming the home inspectors liability as to any system or
component of the residential dwelling covered by such report is
hereby declared to be against public policy and void
This is true with most every contract. You (home owner) cannot sign away your rights.
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike - I don’y know OHIO, and that may be the law where you’re at, but here the Kansas Court System has ruled on several times over the past 3 to 5 years that service businesses (like us) can limit their liability through the use of an “Inspection Agreement or Contract” read and signed by all parties prior to performing the service.
I can't send my kids on a school field trip, get my tonsils out or have lasik eye surgery without signing a Limit of Liability Form.
However, if I go in to have my Tonsils Removed and they take off my Right Leg - you and I both know whatever I signed is out the door and we're in a lawsuit. The same with Home Inspectors.
I think you ought to reread the Bill. It says you can't use language to LIMIT or DISCLAIM your LIABILITY. Thats exactly what our Standards do. Thats what we do when we say the roof was snow covered and not inspected and not visible. Thats also what we do when we tell a client that for the average inspection fee of 1/8 of 1% of the sales price our liability is limited to a certain time frame or a certain dollar amount.
This Bill is attempting to take away a small business persons right to negotiate what risk he/she will or won't take with their clients for a certain fee. They're not doing that with doctors, lawyers, schools, etc.
This Bill is designed by Trial Attorneys to take out the FIREWALL between us and frivilous lawsuits and by Realtors to shift the liability burden.
You or any HI doing business here could become the buyers "Cradle to Grave Insurance Policy and you ought to have a problem with THAT.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike,
You are incorrect. The purpose of many agreements is to limit liability. Most inspectin agreements limits the inspectors liability to the cost of the inspection. So, you are totally off base here.
Things which typically are declared legal but not enforcable n a contract which have clauses limiting liability goes to gross negligence and willful misconduct.
If your inspection agreement does not contain clauses which limit your liability, I'm surprised you were able to attain errors and omissions insurance. Most carriers insist on this type of language. My carrier insisted upon it, reviewed and approved my contract, and will not indemnify me if I do not have a signed contract for each inspection.
The law as proposed in KC is just plain BAD. Getting E&O under those conditions will be difficult, to say the least. Dont be surprised if someday, no carrier will write a policy for those who operate in that location.
That's the real danger
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: Mike Parks This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe
Thanx. I still do not get it.
I will try rereading this post until I get it.
I guess I am looking at it wrong.
Here is how I look at it: You hire me to replace your hot water tank and I get you to sign that I am only liable for $***.**. Now due to my negligence it floods your basement. I do not think a judge would tell you that you are out of luck. They would make me pay for the damage.
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike - What Joe and I are saying is you can have all the Clauses in a LOL Agreement you want but if a court decides you were negligent or have committed fraud they’re out the door - as they should be.
What the real purpose of LOL Clauses is AND what this BILL 2100 is trying to eliminate is our ability to deal with frivilous or unreasonable clients.
In my area over the past year, I have seen inspectors get sued because:
(1) When it rained the house smelled bad and the HI didn't tell them;
(2) The roof was covered with 6" of snow and not visible, the report said so and the buyer was there on site. The buyer never got it reinspected when the snow was gone. Four months later the roof leaks - the seller is out of state, so the buyer sues the inspector;
(3) There is no crawlspace access - the inspector can't get in there and the buyer is on site. Its documented in the report - the buyer never has an access installed so the inspector can reinspect the crawl. Seven months lather they get termites - the contractor cuts an access into the crawlspace and finds standing water and pipe leaks - the seller has moved overseas, so the buyer sues the inspector;
(4) After the buyer moved in she finished out the basement and out down white carpet - 3 months later the water heater ruptures and spews rusty water all over the floor while shes on a weeks vacation. When she gets back the carpet is ruined, mold is forming, and she needs a new water heater. The plumber tells her this brand of water heater has had a terrible history of leaks so she sues the home inspector.
These are the kind of frivilous, petty crap that inspectors all across the country are faced with daily and what this ATTORNEY's attempt to pass Bill 2100 is all about - removing the FIREWALL between us and them.
Originally Posted By: kpapp This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Has enyone passed this on to the E&O Inusrance companies to see what they have to say about it?? Seems the Insurance companines have more pull in goverment than just about anyone!!!
– _______________________________________
If you dont have time to do it right the first time, When will you have the time to go back and fix it?
Originally Posted By: sfraser This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nevermind I got the story for everyone…
Full history of bill 2100
Bill by Patterson
Home inspections; contractual language limiting liability void.
Effective date: St bk.
01/29/2003 H Introduced -HJ 76
01/30/2003 H Referred to Judiciary -HJ 81
02/18/2003 H CR: Be passed as am. by Judiciary -HJ 167
02/20/2003 H COW: CR be adptd; be passed as am. -HJ 179; Engrossed -HJ 189
02/21/2003 H FA: Passed as am.; Yeas 64 Nays 57 -HJ 186
02/21/2003 S Received and introduced -SJ 153
02/24/2003 S Referred to Judiciary -SJ 156
05/27/2004 H Died in Senate committee
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
inspectors from ASHI, NAHI & KAREI (Kansas Association Real Estate Inspectors) raised money ($6k-$8k) AND hired a lobbyist and made MANY trips to the state capital; wrote MANY letters or Emails; made MANY phone calls to legislators, and other trades asking or begging for help, etc.
The Trial Attorneys & KAR (Kansas Association of Realtors) were both pushing this hard. They may try to resurrect it again this next session.
Originally Posted By: John Jacobs This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hello everyone. I know this is an old thread but I’m doing as most of you suggest and reading through everything on the site. In regards to the bill I am relieved to see that it died. I started studying to become a Home Inspecter last August '04. Have completed an “on-line study course”, taken the Nachi on-line exam and taken the NHIE> I am happy to say I have passed all of them but I know I am not ready to begin inspecting homes. In regards to the above mentioned bill at the time I had heard about it I was seriously considering cutting my losses and backing out of pursuing this profession. As of this moment I am on the fence from reading posts regarding liability issues. It seems if you are new to the profession and can afford the E&O insurance you’re “fresh meat” being thrown into the arena. If you can’t afford the E&O but have GL then you’re still at risk. I’m not afraid of a challenge but I prefer not to place what I have worked for all these years on my own (I own my own small LLC business) at risk. I know the risk depends on the quality of the inspection. That’s not what worries me. What worries me are the a******s who’ll sue at the drop of a hat. All I think about is inspecting homes. Whenever I’m at someones house I’m checking things out. I wake up thinking about it. I go to bed thinking about it. All I want to do is inspect homes. I’ve had jobs in the past where you had to play the “office games” in order to get anywhere. I don’t want to do that here.
I realize I’m rambling and don’t really have a point to make. I guess I just want to know if being a Home Inspector is going to be a continual “watch your back” environment.
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
and worn but working when we inspected it AND then 6 weeks later (3 days after they move in) it gives up the ghost and quits AND the buyer or realtor tries to act like WE ought to be financially responsible for this.
Below is my "right to the basics of life" - A little reality speech, I've done hundreds of times when a buyer is getting anal on me ......
Sir or Lady, I didn't agree to adopt and raise you - I just agreed to inspect the house 1 time looking for visual defects present at that time. I'm good but I'm not perfect. Some times things work one minute - then 5 minutes later they don't work. s#!t happens to everyone. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't see through the drywall or under the carpet any better than you can. I'm not an insurance company and I'm not the seller, so the inspection is not a warranty.If you want a warranty or guarantee - buy one. On that basis do you want me to go on with the inspection or not???
Yes, guys this is a litigatious business AND after 26 years I still look over my shoulder, and wonder if I left myself open to a sleezeball!!
Originally Posted By: pcarter This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
And grow thick skin as fast as possible, you have realtors, electricians and about every other trade organization saying all sorts of things that absolutely make no sense at all, just make sure if they make the comment they put it in writing, if not, then fix it. Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, document, document and document, plus take pictures and then more pictures and then more pictures on top of that and then document. Cover your backside, I guess that about sums it all up.
Originally Posted By: John Jacobs This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks guys for your responses. It has given me something to think about. It kind of put things in a different perspective now knowing why some of the RE agents I have dealt with in my current business started “chomping at the bit” when I told them I was pursuing Home Inpection. They just seemed too eager and too excited at the fact which just made me kind of wonder Thank you again for your advice!!
tg
Thank you again for your advice!!