Missouri Real Estate Commission awards InterNACHI school accreditation.

General Inspection Topics Legislation, Licensing, Ethics & Legal Issues
21

Hey guys. Here is another Kansas board issue. Since the board is new, any revenue that is collected goes into a fund, and the board can only use half of it. The other half has to be kept in reserve, and cannot be used. Now, only the inspectors in counties with over 60,000 population have to be registered by July 1, 2009. Maybe 10 counties out of 35. Maybe 100 inspectors. That is only $20K to operate the board with; and they can only use half of that. They want to hire a secretary to handle the paperwork. Won’t have the money. And, with the Kansas budget in arrears by about $1 billion, how is the board going to operate? The board members were shaking their heads at the meeting. I left after about two hours. I wonder how the attorney was going to be paid.

Another? Any revenue collected by a licensed or registration agency, the application must include the applicants SS# . It seems that Kansas has a law where the money will not be deposited with the board it is directed to until the SS# is checked for deliquent child support payments. They use the SS# to track that. All inspectors must give their SS# to the state on the home inspector license form. Maybe not too big an issue, but just another avenue to give away your privacy.

The board has a lot of work to do. We, as other inspectors, would like to help, but I get the feeling they want to do what they want to do. So far.

22

James writes:

My position hasn’t changed in 20 years.

23

So you agreed that we should follow the policy that Joe wrote and you approved many, many years ago?

The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors
Policy and Position Statement on Home Inspection Legislation

The International Association of Certified Home Inspectors (NACHI) is committed to supporting its members wherever and whenever legislative efforts are underway in member States to establish home inspector licensing. To that end, NACHI has adopted the following position statement relative to HI legislation, proposed HI legislation, and HI legislative efforts in any state, county, or municipality where any such laws are in effect, being proposed, or are under development.

NACHI believes that members should remain in control of their own destinies. To that end, NACHI does not support “model” home inspection legislation, as we believe that one size does not fit all. Membership, market, and geography should be the determining factors in HI legislation that NACHI can and will support.

In general, where home inspection legislation is needed or eminent, NACHI supports legislation that genuinely keeps the consumer and inspector in mind. NACHI will NOT support legislation which we believe will hurt our members or the consumer. While we believe in testing, NACHI does NOT support any legislation which limits testing to the NHIE. Descriptions such as “psychometrically valid” shall be tolerated in those specific instances where the State takes the time and invests the funds to evaluate all available exams for adherence to true psychometric criteria and validation.

Additionally, NACHI does NOT support legislation which eliminates grandfathering, establishes arbitrary apprenticeship (or like) programs as a requirement for licensure, or mandates any arbitrary or restrictive measures to meeting legitimate licensing or educational requirements (including continuing education) for home inspectors or prospective home inspectors.

Finally, NACHI will NOT support legislation which specifically names any home inspection association, unless such language is inclusive of all national home inspection organizations. One home inspection association cannot be in any more advantageous position over any other. NACHI will also NOT support legislation which requires, as a condition of licensure, membership in any national, state, or local home inspection organization, or exclusive use of one education provider’s course curriculum.

NACHI’s position is also that the establishment of any state licensing or advisory board shall include balanced member representation from each of the national home inspection organizations which exist at the time said legislation is enacted. NACHI also believes that such advisory boards should specifically exclude members from any profession or organization that could benefit from the control of the home inspection profession, or where influence peddling could prove detrimental to inspectors or the public at large. For these reasons, NACHI will only support legislation where an advisory licensing board is comprised of members of the home inspection profession, and where members of the public at-large may have a single representative of the profession of professional engineering or architecture, but shall not include any member from real estate or construction industry. It is the position of NACHI that both professions are too closely tied to the home inspection industry, and could be influenced to recommend arbitrary measures which would put their professions in an advantageous position over members of the home inspection industry, and ultimately fail to serve the public interest. Further, in no instance shall a member of the public-at-large be directly involved with the inspection industry, nor shall any member serve in any capacity as a building code official. NACHI believes that such boards should act in an advisory nature, exclusively, and should have no specific authority to administrate, enact, modify, or enforce any provision of any home inspection licensing law, including acceptance or denial of licenses or applications for licensure, or educational providers and approval of course materials. NACHI believes these activities should remain in the control of state agencies and employees, who are ultimately accountable to the taxpayers of that state.

Representatives speaking on behalf of NACHI shall limit involvement to those areas as directed by the affected membership, in all but those instances where core elements of any proposed or enacted legislation are inconsistent with this policy. In all other instances, NACHI National’s involvement shall be at the request and direction of the majority of local members.

24

As long as Nick certifies us to teach we should be able to educate the masses ourself IMO. However, I’m sure your probably right.

Nick what’s the agreement with the state of MO? Can you certify us to teach?

25

I got off track on this thread. I am glad Nick is listening. Teaching is important for our future home inspectors. Look at the average age thread posted on this message board. Young guys need our guidance. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. I hope it ain’t no train.

26

Living on the Kansas / Missouri state line I find it hard to keep track of which is which, but 1 state has I believe 105 counties - the other about 114 counties.

27

Word games.

I’ve explained more than once…there are NO home inspection laws that are written to be “inspector friendly”. They are all harmful to the profession (by "dumbing it down), harmful to the consumer (by misleading them that licensing equals competence), and to the inspectors that the special interests intended to harm (part time, rural, etc).

I will point out, however, the following:

  1. ALL HI laws that do not prohibit the inspector from negotiating his liability to be less than $10,000 are more inspector friendly than the Kansas Law.

  2. ALL HI laws that do not put a real estate salesman on the licensing board that governs home inspectors are more inspector friendly than the Kansas Law.

  3. All HI laws that do not put a trial attorney on the licensing board that governs home inspectors are more inspector friendly than the Kansas Law.

  4. ALL HI laws that do not require E&O, bonding, etc** are more inspector friendly than the Kansas Law.**

  5. ALL HI laws that do not provide the licensing board with complete autonomy over the process of determining all licensing requirements (instead of using it as an advisory board) are more inspector friendly than the Kansas Law.

I think when you apply just these quick five points to the 18 or 19 licensing laws in effect throughout the land, you will find that ALL OF THEM are more HI inspector friendly in one (or more) regard or another. The Kansas law is the worst law on the books…for the consumer, especially.

In no other state where licensing laws have been passed has any major real estate broker determined the need to stop recommending home inspections, entirely…as one has in Kansas.

Does that finally answer your burning question, Nick?

28

Word games? You’re the one who doesn’t grasp the difference between an adjective and a degree.

Here, I’ll reword it for you:

All home inspector laws are inspector-unfriendly. The Kansas Law is the least inspector-UNfriendly of all state home inspection laws.

29

Read my post.

The Kansas Law is the MOST inspector-UNfriendly of all state home inspection laws.

30

Great post, James. Now with the ITA out of business, the state education requirements may be out the window in most states. I guess they figured that more home inspectors would be attending their classes and taking their tests for fees. With home inspectors dropping like flies and going out of business, it has to trickle down to the agencies and classrooms. Nick will be losing members next year, and his revenue will be lower. Just like every other business. There will be fewer home inspectors. This may be a good time for the Kansas board to take the bill back to the legislatures for revisions. I know of at least one senator that will not be happy. Like the big three auto maker CEO’s who where stupid enough to fly corporate jets to the senate hearing, most all of the big business owners just do not get it. I hope Nick and the Kansas board members stand up for us, and not their own interests. Now may be the time for us, as the little inspectors, to make a move and write letters to senators and the house reps and say “see…” I will keep your post James, in case I get to sound off at the next meeting/hearing. Great points.

31

What the heck, I’ll say it one more time. A home inspector law that prohibits an inspector from attempting to limit his liability to less the $10,000, which most of the time will not be held up in court anyway, has done something wonderful…

It has, BY STATUTE, permitted inspectors to limit their liability to $10,001. The judge now has a value where limitation is permitted.

I sure wish I could limit my liability to $10,001 by statute!

32

P.S. I predict that you will all end up with the least expensive E&O in the country.

33

You selected only one of the five, Nick.

And you have missed the point of the law, entirely.

Why do you think there is a trial lawyer position permanently assigned to this board? To ensure that home inspectors have limited liability?

They do not.

While they, themselves, are unable to negotiate a lower liability than $10,000 for errors and omissions…their clients are free to sue them for tens of hundreds of millions for fraud, negligence, or breach of contract (which most do).

This negotiation of a lower liability was not forbidden in the law because, as you wrongfully conclude, it never held up in court. It did hold up in court which is why the law (as lobbied by the Trial Lawyers Assoc, along with their oversight of the board) specified that it could no longer be done. Why forbid a practice that was generally ignored? In fact, Dan has listed several businesses in Kansas where the law still allows such limitations of liability to be negotiated.

34

Negligence and breach of contract are forms of errors and omissions.

Gross negligence isn’t. But there is a big difference between gross negligence and mere negligence.

As for fraud, an inspector guilty of fraud should lose in court.

35

And if you don’t think that negligence and breach of contract are forms of errors and omissions and limited to $10,001 (if using the InterNACHI Kansas inspection agreement)… you are free to limit it to the cost of the inspection then.

Pick your poison, either way your liability is limited to $10,001 or something less.

36

One does not have to be “guilty” of fraud to be sued for it…with the unlimited punitive damages that are allowed to accompany it.

If your advertising says that you “exceed” a particular standard and your inspection report reflects that you did not…that could be fraud.

If your advertising or contract reflects that you are a member in good standing of NACHI…and the plaintiff’s request for verification to NACHI shows that the inspector is 10 hours shy of last year’s CEU requirements…that could be fraud.

The list is a long one…and any attorney who knows how to inflate a contingency lawsuit will be able to cook any Kansas inspector he wishes no matter what this law says…and he will have a trial attorney on the Licensing Board who will provide him with an official Licensing Board interpretation of the law that will allow him to do so.

This law protects no one from anything, Nick.

37

Limit your negligence to the cost of the inspection and your entire liability to $10,001. If the judge points at the statute’s $10,001 limit in throwing the former out, then the latter stands. If he doesn’t… even better for you.

38

I don’t see a scenerio whereby a plaintiff could be awarded punitive damages against an inspector who didn’t lose the suit.

39

And if your argument is that the law doesn’t outright prohibit lawsuits against inspectors, I of course agree… but a $10,001 limit sure deters 'em!

40

The law does not include all “forms” of errors and ommissions, but instead, names it singley and exclusively.

This is why Reece-Nichols RE Brokerage stopped recommending home inspections. They know that I have $10,000 at stake when I find a spot on the ceiling in a closet. Accordingly, they know that the only way I can protect myself is to tell the client all of the possibilities ---- that there could be concealed rot or mold behind every blemish.

No sir…my liability is so great in Kansas that the realtors can not take the chance that I cover myself with such a report.

There is nothing in this provision that helps an inspector and there is much in it…and in othe provisions of this law, that harm him.