New advanced, online, video course on inspecting crawlspaces.

That was my spelling error, not his.

And with spelling being the only error…the message is very clear.

Jim writes:

Maybe. I can look at the overall message that someone is attempting to convey and the overall good advice that I get from it… without nitpicking on every individual word or sentence as if they were stand-alone.

BTW, your message was not so clear in my opinion as it implies that an insurer can deny a claim within SOP simply because the inspector also exceeded SOP. What the insurer meant to say was that the insurer can deny a claim for that which the inspector did outside SOP. The insurer can’t deny a claim for something within SOP simply because the inspector also went outside SOP.

An inspector who ventures outside of SOP is only uninsured outside SOP and doesn’t void his policy for all the work he did within SOP. Your post implied otherwise and so is not very clear.

You are on ESOP no? I am “flabbergasted” at your comment, this is “surreal.” :smiley: :wink:

It depends upon the wording of the claim and what I “exceeded”.

Ben’s general statement to the poor guy trying to survive a 24" muddy and wet crawlspace…to consider the SOP a “faded memory”… can put him in as much legal jeopardy as he is regarding his personal safety.

Jim writes

No it doesn’t.

An inspector who exceeds SOP by crawling into an 18" crawspace with an infrared camera doesn’t void his insurance coverage for the roof he inspected to SOP.

Here is the SOP:


Allowing this to “fade from memory” and replacing any or all of these things with something else gives your insurer the right to deny a claim.

I hope this is more clear.

The SOP limits your requirement to report on “active” water penetrations. If your use of the IR is to locate “inactive” water penetrations and you find three out of four…and the client wants to sue you for missing number four…your insurer can deny your claim.


Jim writes

Of course! But the insurer wouldn’t be denying the claim because the inspector exceeded SOP! The insurer would be denying the claim because the 4th inactive water penetration couldn’t be found by performing an inspection within SOP.

You are totally wrong on this one Jim.

Anyway, my point is that if a member of ESOP, such as yourself, can make totally goofy, incorrect, posts about exceeding SOP, even after I’ve given you plenty of information, time and opportunity to get it right … perhaps you shouldn’t be so nitpicky about every little word in other people’s message board posts.

And just so you know that I admit I’m in the same boat as you and everyone else in terms of perfection… I haven’t watched a single show on www.NACHI.TV where I didn’t say to myself “Dang, that was a mistake on my part.”

LOL…Nick, come on.

How could you think…or anyone think…that exceeding the SOP by opening all windows could affect something I was being sued for in the basement?

You are right, though. I should have been more clear.

I know that you are not expecting anyone to believe that the producer of the “advanced” crawlspace video was not encouraging people to enter 24" wet crawlspaces…are you? He bet us $20 that most inspectors walk away from them…as well they should…and as an “advanced” course in crawlspaces should teach.

I certainly got the impression that he was advocating that activity. Not quite the same as a spelling error and misinterpretation of the word “exceed”, ya think?

I have some time tomorrow a.m. to take the course and I will. I will be publishing my apology if one is warranted…but if your video is showing Kenton slipping around in a wet, 24" crawlspace and … well, never mind. I will wait until I see it.

Thanks. And keep in mind that Kenton is not at a podium reading from a perfect power point presentation in his Sunday-go-to-meetin’ suit (that’s why we include downloadable course material)… and he is not a professional actor either. He is speaking ON LOCATION, in a dirty crawlspace, with a camera pointed at his face. Not as easy as it looks, been there, done that.

Wow! What happened while I was gone. I missed this whole conversation.

Forgive my absence, but Kenton and I were on a 6/12 sloped metal roof, 65 feet from the ground, all afternoon, shooting a new “advanced inspection of roofs” video. It took a while because it was raining during the shoot, and we had no shoes on, and I had to hold the electrical cords in my teeth, and balance myself, while sitting on top of the brick chimney, one hand holding the camera, the other holding a rusty TV antennae. Kenton had to keep re-doing his lines because of the loud thundering and lightning strikes all around us. For a moment in the filming I lost focus, because Kenton slit open the bottom of one of his big feet on a rusty standing seam of the metal roof. The roof was painted red, so I didn’t notice at the time that he was losing blood, a lot of blood, until he mustof got dizzy and stumbled right over the ridge. Man he really slid fast down the other side. Those metal roofs get pretty slick. Well, I tried to help him by suggesting to grab that black rope line nearby. It seamed like a really nice way for him to just slip off to safety. I realized that he might be in trouble when that black rope started to spark and crackle at the one end that was connected to the telephone pole. Oh well… I got the whole thing on tape. As soon as it dries off, I’ll edit it.

I just hate when that kinda stuff happens on one of my advanced inspections, don’t you? :slight_smile:

Is your facetious description of your upcoming (dare I say it?) “advanced” roof inspection film meant to lead us to believe you were also being fascitious in your suggestion that an inspector enter a 24" wet crawlspace?

As the producer of NACHI training films and for the record…are you continuing to suggest that home inspectors should enter a 24" high wet crawlspace?

Editing note: Corrected my spelling to avert the new issue diversion tactic.

You are a hoot!
p.s. It’s not fascitious. It’s fascist.
LOL on the floor…

…having trouble reaching my keyboard

…tears in my eyes

got to go.

my cheeks hurt…

It is obvious that the ability to deal direct and honestly with criticism is not a genetic trait.

Or he meant this. :wink:

facetious:meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark

Jimmy B,

It all comes down to two things:
(a)You haven’t watched the video, and (ii)You haven’t returned my phone call that I made at post #7.

Watch the video, please. I said that I’d reimberse you for it. What are you waiting for? How can one intellectually judge any of the work produced on NACHI.TV without even watching one video. Just one, James. Just one video. Watch the video. One. Please. Pretty. Pretty. Pretty. Please.

The whole world is waiting…
tick tick tick

p.s. this is fun. no wonder you guys post so much at night. :smiley:

Now really, I got to go…