New service for members who discover foundation issues.

Ever find foundation issues during an inspection? Ever point out cracks to your client? Ever not sure what those cracks mean? Ever afraid to say to much for fear of practicing engineering without a license? Ever have a client ask… “Are these cracks something to worry about?”

InterNACHI to the rescue!

InterNACHI has partnered with a network of structural and professional engineers across the U.S. and Canada. We are setting up a special phone number that members can call, right from an inspection, and get help.

The foundation experts on the other end will speak to you or your client direct and explain what the presence of different cracks may mean. The experts will also review pictures the inspector can upload to (InterNACHI’s report upload system) if desired. They can also arrange with your client to visit the home, for no additional charge.

The network is already in place and a NACHI.TV episode has been filmed to help explain the program. We’re predicting a launch date of early March.

This program reduces liability for imembrers while providing added value for their clients, all at no charge.

InterNACHI… always helping.

Sounds great
Hope it works out.

Very good!

What you wanna bet the phone gets answered something like “Olshan Foundation Repairs…how may I direct your call?” and that the ‘structural and professional engineers’ turn out to be hourly sales reps. I can’t imagine any licensed PE will " speak to you or your client direct and explain what the presence of different cracks may mean" based solely on a phone call. I’m skeptical, please tell me I’m wrong Nick.

Super Fantastic idea Nick, thanks

Question for Ben Garrison…

When I report that my client should consult with an expert on an issue that I find and the client finds his own expert, I know that I am free and clear from any liability or responsibility regarding that expert’s future advice or relationship with my client.

However, when I select the “expert” for the client and it is my photographs or communications that the “expert” that I selected relies upon for his finding…or should the client decide to have a future relationship with the “expert” based upon my coordinating their meeting…it seems to me that I may be held partially or totally liable for the outcome of that relationship. Would I?

And…if so…would a standard E&O policy cover me for his errors or omissions?

Ring! Ring!

Good Morning, Pro-Lab Engineering…

Yes, we can provide a structural review by phone…

Yes, we will dispatch an independent licensed Structural Engineer to your location in just a few minutes…

Best of all, it is completely free of charge.

Are you kidding me?

I think we should leave Ben and Bob out of these threads. These poor guys have got to work with NACHI ownership, we don’t…

And if your client doesn’t consult with a licensed expert, who do you think is left to go after? You! This puts a licensed expert between you and your client whenever a structural issue is discovered. Just don’t take a referral fee from the engineer.

If this is such a good deal and eliminates my liability…as verified by a legitimate source of information, such as Ben…I will find my own local guy, and put the kickback for the referral in my OWN pocket.

Why would you think it would eliminate your liability?

Isn’t that was this means?

So, I should refer my clients to you or one of your merry men with regard to structural, geological and or environmental issues.

Let’s assume you and Pro-Lab Engineering might make a mistake in your haste to extract profit over quality of service. Let’s further assume the client gets upset because of an oversight by you and or Pro-Lab Engineering and contacts an attorney.

When their attorney finds, views and explores this website and all of its negative posts and information regarding some of your programs, question #1 will be, “Why did you refer Nick Gromicko and his band of merry men to your client?”

To avoid these types of scenario’s I would include the following comment:

Recommend client contact an independent registered structural engineer for further inspection of the subject property prior to close of escrow.

BTW, in Southern California I personally would refer my clients should they be unable to locate an engineer on their own to the following:

I’ve noticed anytime Nick posts a new “benefit” it’s torn apart by people. I’m not at all saying anyone should buy into everything they hear but there’s a right way and a wrong way to question things. Seems like things are struck down with worse case assumptions.

It’s just the way new “products” are vetted around here.

If they turn out to be useful some of the same critics will return to sing their praises.

In this business you plan for the worst case scenario. If you’re in business long enough and do enough inspections, bad news will make its way to your door.

One thing most long term, successfull inspectors have in common, the ability to keep themselves out of trouble. You don’t accomplish that task by involving yourself in unethical, questionable and or fly by night business practices and or partnership arrangements.

Proceed at your own risk!

This is not a new software product or miracle ladder.

This is about referring your client to a structural engineer, live, site unseen, to give professional advise based on the findings of your inspection.

It is logical why you would question my motives and to think that my criticism of this “benefit” has to do with some other agenda…but when you look at it at its face value, it will become more clear to you why everything that Nick calls a “benefit” is not necessarily so.

Keep in mind that your dues are already spent. These “benefits” are designed to attract people like me…and others who are not members…to want to join in order to take advantage of them. Many of those on the outside of NACHI are new inspectors or people considering the possibility of becoming one and do not really know what questions to ask.

Nick published on another thread that the average NACHI member only takes advantage of 3% of his “benefits”. A quick run through the list shows why…but again…you are in business, already, and can more easily discern what a “benefit” really is, which is why the average member rejects (according to Nick) 97% of them. (Of course, there is no real way of measuring who uses what and these figures were just made up by Nick, but I’ll bet they are very close to being right).

So…in this thread that was written to be read by the general public…we have an announcement of a “benefit” that, if actually utilized, could possibly end one’s inspection business…but result in new enrollments, which is what it was designed to do.


I completely understand. Advice based on phone conversation when it relates to this function would be guesswork at best. I don’t think it takes a seasoned inspector to see that.

I was not trying to validate the usefulness of this service.

How would “they”, whomever they are, be able to have a SU anywhere in the country. Didn’t know they had a network like that anywhere, but maybe they do…I really don’t know.