New insurance covers structural issues missed by a home inspector - The Washington Post

Interesting… on one hand I like it because it implies buyers need to look out for themselves and HIs aren’t responsible for everything (even through our favorite phrase, “the home inspector missed…” is peppered throughout the article).

But, I don’t like it because it will encourage buyers to skip their inspection. We all know in this scarce market buyers don’t need any more encouragement to do that.

Yes, I don’t like it for the same reason. Just another case of the insurers grabbing opportunity wherever they see a vacuum. And, who will be selling those policies for a fee? The agents and brokers.

1 Like

From my perspective there are a number of concerns with this concept… Keep in mind, when an insurance policy is sold, the insurance company stands in the shoes of their insured… This means, if an inspector misses something, the carrier is not just going to write a check and walk away… They’ll pursue the inspector through subrogation… In addition, the insurance carriers have their own in-house atty’s, who are sophisticated users of our civl court system… That said, where a client may only bring an action if recovery is viable, the insurance companies will often enter litigation knowing they can’t win, but realize every case they get past a motion for summary judgement has a value… In addition, the insurance carriers will have a network of “experts” paid by the hour, many of whom are willing to opine anything their clients want… I think we’ll see an uptick in litigation and more claims if this concept catches on…


It may have a positive effect of motivating inspectors to perform a more thorough job of inspecting home foundations, reporting any observed negative conditions, and recommending further inspection by a foundation expert or engineer.

If the insurance company “gets past a motion for summary judgment”, it is an automatic win for them, is it not?

It’s not a ‘win’, it simply means they can move forward with the action… That said, the cost to defend against their action then increases for the defendant, which gives their case more value… Often that would result in more serious settlement discussions at that point, so I could see our E&O carriers opting to limit their exposure and settling… Just my opinion, but based on 20+ yrs on the plaintiffs side…

Jeffrey Knurr, Home Inspector
Due Diligence , llc
‘A Professional Home Inspection Company’

David Williams, NACHI CPI 18092410 dwilliams49 InterNACHI®️ CPI
September 2

If the insurance company “gets past a motion for summary judgment”, it is an automatic win for them, is it not?

1 Like