NACHI members to pre-inspect every home. Listen for the giant sucking sound.

Listen for the giant sucking sound as we pull inspections out of the market for NACHI members:

Looks like you are really gearing up for RealMatcher . .
Any launch date proposed, Nick?

Already gobbling data like PacMan. You see I get called everything from assistant Janitor to outright dictator to other words I can’t mention… but an appropriate title for me at NACHI is seamstress.

Caveat: Don’t forget a list of disadvantages - such as one needs consider a higher level of risk by the mere fact that “many” buyers could also be relying on that inspection report. What are their expectations? Certainly I am not trying to overlook the great list of advantages, but do not discount the fact that the risk level can be higher, and that conditions may change even in the near future.

When I first entered the profession an inspector in Arizona gave a nice guarantee with his listing inspections. He would repair any major damages that he missed that were found during the buyers inspection. I don’t know if Allen Wells Blake (I believe that is his name) does that anymore or not.

Q. Isn’t a home inspector’s liability increased by having his/her reports be seen by potential buyers?

A. No. There is no liability in having your seller permit someone who doesn’t buy the property see your report. And there is less liability in having a buyer rely on your old report when the buyer is not your client and has been warned not to rely on your report, than it is to work directly for the buyer and have him be entitled to rely on your report.

Suggested language for:

  • inspectors to add to their seller inspection reports.
  • sellers to use to encourage buyers to perform their own fresh inspections.
  • agents to use to encourage buyers to perform their own fresh inspections.
    [INDENT]“Note: Just as no two home inspectors and no two reporting systems are alike, no two inspection reports, even if performed on the same property at the same time, are alike. This seller or pre-listing inspection report was performed for my client, the home seller, with the cooperation and assistance of my client, the home seller. It assumes full disclosure on the part of my client, the home seller. My client may choose to share my report with others, but it was performed solely for my client. And although ABC Inspections performs all inspections and writes all reports objectively without regard to the client’s personal interests, performing additional fresh inspections, which of course would reveal and report matters differently, should be considered.”


I would change the sentence in the last paragraph to:

“…which could reveal…”

Above and beyond your liability be decreased due to the fact that the buyer is NOT your client… your client moves away from the property inspected…

there is…

the fact that liability is inversely proportional to the age of the report, and seller inspections increase the time between the date of the report and the move-in date.

Joe Hagarty: Change being made now. Very good!

Joe Hagarty: Done. Thanks!

The buyer, most likely, will hire his or her own inspector with a new report. The report certainly will not be the same, there would be differences. Hopefully, it would find less, minus the repairs/changes the seller chose to make after the initial report, and the differences would be minor, but I think there would be differences.

I have been on many inspections where the owner and/or agent said, “this house was inspected before and that wasn’t mentioned.” I know some of that is just blowing smoke, and some also has to do with the thoroughness of the inspector. However, if 10 inspectors did an inspection on the same house, on the same day, no two reports would be identical.

Would the agreement be any different? Any additional clause?


Nick, the final sentence starting with the word “And although ABC Inspections…” should be slightly revised. Remove the word “And” and begin the sentence “Although ABC Inspections performs all inspections and writes all reports objectively without regard to …” This revised sentence reads better and is grammatically sound.

Dennis, done. Thanks!

Members, don’t forget to CLICK on your Pre-Listing box in which bubbles you to the top of searches performed by consumers looking for this service.

Here is the direct link: for members to add it to the services they offer.

It’s a great marketing idea, and the increased revenue would probably allay the risks involved. But the increased liability, as Claude points out, is very real, particularly if every potential buyer had access to the rpre-sale report. In California, disclosure regulation damn near guarantees that every potential buyer would have the right to a pre-sale report, and the Leco decision guarantees that that same potential buyer is legally entitled to rely on that pre-sale report. I know, because I was sued over something that was disclaimed in my report and by persons who had not paid for my report, had never consulted with me, and certainly never paid for my services. Granted this happened in Los Angeles (LA-la-land).

Actually, that would be a nice letter to send out as the next NACHI email to Agents.
Care to facilitate that, Nick?

Thank you Keith, certainly I am an avid reader and believer of your experiences offered for all of us to be aware and equally heed with caution. In addition, I know others that have fallen victim to such unfortunate circumstances.

read the bottom of the page

You may also want to post that link over at ,