Lets say you perform a MIC inspection for a seller, which exposes some issues that the seller then has repaired. They then want you to re-inspect the property to check that repairs have been made and note the repairs on the report.
How much would you charge for that second inspection? Full price? Half?
My thinking is that unlike a full home inspection, you are inspecting less, you are inspecting things you’ve inspected before, you have no marketing costs, and you have almost no risk management costs.
Oh, it isn’t even close. The liability of inspecting for someone moving OUT of the house is way less then inspecting for someone moving INTO the house you inspected.
Even in the rare situation that you describe… yes… I’d much rather say “Ooops, I’m glad the buyer’s inspector found that for you so you can negotiate with the seller before you buy the home” than “Ooops, I’m sorry I missed that, how much do I owe you now that you bought the home?”
Yes, it would be embarrassing to have the buyer’s inspector find that the roof needs to be replaced after you said the roof was new (worst case example)… but it’s better to be embarrassed than to be embarrassed and out $20K.
Remember, the buyer (the guy moving into the home) can’t sue you on an MIC inspection. He has no standing. He isn’t your client. He has to use his inspector, not you.
Furthermore, MIC inspections put more time between your inspection and the sale date and a home inspection is just a snapshot in time.
so you are telling me that if someone inspects my home and tells me my roof is good and it turns out it needs to be replaced all I get is red-faced and apologize. That could affect the sale and / or the sales price of the home. Now I am holding a legal document that says I have a good roof, when in fact I don’t. I don’t think the courts will see it that way if I decide to sue the inspector, especially if that house is in a state that requires licensing.
No, I’m saying that the “worst case” scenario you painted where the inspector totally blows it and reports to the seller that he has a new roof, when in fact the roof has to be replaced and thankfully the buyers inspector catches it for everyone (including the first inspector)… that is STILL way less liability than reporting to the buyer that they had a new roof, having the buyer rely on that misinformation, pay full price for the home believing the roof was new, suffering a leak, and finding out that the roof needs to be replaced.
In your scenario, the buyer is alerted to the bad roof BEFORE he pays full price for the home. That’s way better than not being alerted before he buys the home.
Anyway you look at it, it is better to have the seller for your client than to have the buyer for your client:
It is better to be right for the seller than to be right for the buyer. And it is better to be wrong for the seller than to be wrong for the buyer.