1955 single-family. I believe that this wooden cabinet housing around the service panel would not be considered weatherproof. Am I correct? If not weatherproof, then this would be considered a wet location and the NM-B wiring would not allowed. Again, am I correct? Would you write this up as a defect?
I keep seeing this type of cabinet every once in a while with NM-B. This one has a bird’s nest in it so I definitely think its NOT weatherproof.
That service panel and meter don’t look like they’ve ever seen any weather.
Agreed. 10 characters
I personally would consider that a dry location as it pertains to the type of cable allowed. Not sure if it would meet every technical definition of a dry location, but in real life, it appears to be a dry location.
Yes, my sentiment exactly. But in a CYA environment, I got to check myself here and there.
Maybe I’m feeling a little exposed after finding out that my PIA only protects me about 5% of the time. Not sure if you read that recent post. My reports are included in the seller disclosure packet and possibly relied on by dozens of eyeballs. AND, I just found out that any pair of those eyeballs can sue me directly, even though I don’t have a contract with them! Super crazy and unnerving but I guess thats what I unknowingly signed up for. That’s a topic for the legal section I suppose, sigh.
Do you use the NACHI agreement with the “not responsible for 3rd party use” clause? Just curious, even though I know that no contract is rock solid once in court.
My client is the only one that sees and agrees to that clause. Not the buyer / 3rd party. 3rd party lawsuits are welcomed here in Cali, again, sigh.
Need to add a clause to sue your client if they share the report with anyone…anywhere.
Seriously, that’s a “Are ya kiddin’ me?” That’s nuts.
You could say something like it might not meet recognized modern standards but there were no signs of moisture or weather related issues.
My business would drop to almost zero. Listing agents order my inspections, and every other company’s inspections in my area, specifically for the seller disclosure packet. I’m starting to feel like I’m speaking in tongues.
I like that approach 
It’s true.
Here’s an idea…
Place a large block of text in both the summary and full report that states…
“This inspection was performed on behalf of, and under contract with, the property owner on the date of the inspection. Any third party use after the date of the inspection is on an “at-risk” basis and the inspector disclaims any liability to 3rd parties utilizing the report after the date of the inspection. Opening and viewing or reading this report signifies that you are in agreement with this limitation of liability and agree not to hold the inspector liable for any decisions made based on its use."
Or something along those lines, maybe run it past a real lawyer for best wording. It would be even better if you could have a way for the 3rd party to check a box that they agree.
Yeah, I know. I use a couple of phrases.
“Nonconforming but performing”
“Not to best practices, but functioning”
“DIY, but performing intended purpose” I haven’t used that one much.
Sub-standard is also a good word.
I include this in my report:
General Inspection Info: This Report Was Created Solely For Our Client(s)
Our inspection and report was performed and created for our Client’s use only. Client(s) must give us permission to discuss our observations with real estate agents, owners, repair persons, or other interested parties. Client(s) will be the sole owner(s) of the report and all rights to it. We are not responsible for use or misinterpretation by third parties, and third parties who rely on it in any way do so at their own risk and release us (including employees and business entities) from any liability whatsoever. Our inspection and report are in no way a guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the future use, operability, habitability, or suitability of the home/building or its components. We disclaim all warranties, express or implied, to the fullest extent allowed by law.
BUT, my report is not a binding document with the prospective buyer. IDK if this would hold up in court.
That’s pretty good. The idea isn’t really that it be rock solid in court (although that would be great). If in court, you have already suffered. The idea is to discourage legal action in the first place. I think your statement helps do that. I would just make sure it is loud and proud in both the summary and the full report, so they can’t say they never saw that.
Good idea! Its not currently included in the summary but it will be now.
I would write it up as inadequate working space and the wood cabinet as having deteriorated paint.
The fix - Get rid of the cabinet, 2 birds, one stone. 
Yeah, there’s been a panel in that location for 70 years. We better upgrade it to new standards otherwise it’s defective.
Then it would be 100% a wet location without inspector discretion and it would have to be rewired with conduit and the appropriate wire. The NM-B would be exposed which is not allowed.
