Old Recall

Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



An inspection yesterday reminded me of something. The home had fire sprinklers, as do all homes in this county of over 200,000 residents, built since 1996. The sprinklers were Central Omega’s, a recalled sprinkler that has failed in fires and identified by the CPSC as a danger. I did note that they were recalled, and have included information about replacements since the deadline on the free replacements has passed.


My questions are: would any of you be able to identify this recall, and if so how would you report on it?


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Joel Corwith
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I asked basically the same question in the General forum and no response. AZ code (ASHI) standards specifically exclude the “observation” of fire suppression sprinklers (not in many homes), but I have to think if you saw a system and didn’t inspect it you would suggest it be inspected by a specialist.


If you do report it as a recalled item, and the recalled built in microwave, which you didn't report, catches fire will their attorney be asking you why you observed a recall on one system but not all the others?

Joel. phx

And if you only report that omega was recalled, you have observed and reported on the system (despite the standard). Did you perform a through review of the system, "and why not" asks the attorney....


Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Good points. As I have argued before, NACHI SOP’s are guidelines. They are allowed to be exceeded. I am an expert in fire suppression systems, therefore I did recognize the recall immediately. My contract also specifically protects me. In short form it says because I note one recall does not hold me liable for others I did not note.


So yes I can legally note one recall and not be liable for another, and the "standards" do not say I can't check recalls.

Quote:
you have observed and reported on the system (despite the standard)


If AZ follows ASHI SOP's, where does it say you cannot inspect them?

From ASHI SOP's:

Quote:
2.3 These Standards of Practice are not intended to limit inspectors from:

including other inspection services, systems or components in addition to those required by these Standards of Practice.
specifying repairs, provided the inspector is appropriately qualified and willing to do so.
excluding systems and components from the inspection if requested by the client.



--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Joel Corwith
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



dfrend wrote:
Good points. As I have argued before, NACHI SOP's are guidelines. They are allowed to be exceeded. I am an expert in fire suppression systems, therefore I did recognize the recall immediately. My contract also specifically protects me. In short form it says because I note one recall does not hold me liable for others I did not note.

So yes I can legally note one recall and not be liable for another, and the "standards" do not say I can't check recalls.

Sounds like you're covered. Do you specify inspection of sprinklers in your contract? Do you have any recommendations for additional infomation on Omega systems?

Quote:
you have observed and reported on the system (despite the standard)


If AZ follows ASHI SOP's, where does it say you cannot inspect them?

I neither stated, nor implied that one cannot exceed inspection standards. If your contract states that you are inspecting to a standard and you exceed it in one place but not another, that's between you and the client's attorney

Joel. phx


From ASHI SOP's:

Quote:
2.3 These Standards of Practice are not intended to limit inspectors from:



Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Your post was misleading. Does AZ follow ASHI SOP’s or go beyond that and exclude sprinklers. You mention they are excluded and that " you have observed and reported on the system (despite the standard)". Despite is what mislead me. Dispite indicates you are doing something you are not allowed to do.



Daniel R Frend


www.nachifoundation.org


The Home Inspector Store


www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Joel Corwith
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



dfrend wrote:
Your post was misleading. Does AZ follow ASHI SOP's or go beyond that and exclude sprinklers.

ASHI --excludes-- fire sprinklers.

You mention they are excluded and that " you have observed and reported on the system (despite the standard)". Despite is what mislead me. Despite indicates you are doing something you are not allowed to do.

I see why you are confused. Despite has nothing to do with "being allowed". Despite, "in spite of", "regardless of", notwithstanding". The requirements state you are "NOT required to inspect:" and regardless of {despite} that fact you do.

Joel. phx

in spite of
notwithstanding
regardless of




Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



But you CAN inspect them. The standard allows you to inspect them, but certainly does not require it, as it shouldn’t. So, you are still following standards if you DO inspect them.



Daniel R Frend


www.nachifoundation.org


The Home Inspector Store


www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Joel Corwith
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



dfrend wrote:
But you CAN inspect them. The standard allows you to inspect them, but certainly does not require it, as it shouldn't. So, you are still following standards if you DO inspect them.

Obviously. Who's arguing that you can't inspect them, or aren't following standards?

I'm not sure why you're caught up with the can/can't allowed/not allowed. Is this from the other thread you were arguing in? Despite being told you could take the day off on Friday, you put in a full day. Despite the fact the standard excludes inspection of fire sprinklers, you have chosen to inspect them.

Why shouldn't the standard require you to inspect an in-home plumbing system? I would certainly expect it as a homeowner.

The standard does not require you to inspect sprinklers. If you decide to, I believe you should perform a complete inspection and had better cover yourself in your contract. If your contract only says ASHI standard, I believe you're opening yourself up when you inspect an excluded system.

Joel. phx





Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



OK, misunderstood you. My original questions still stand. Would anyone here recognize the Omega’s (largest recall)? And if you did, how would you report it or would you? So if you see the sprinklers, and you KNOW they are recalled and the malfunction related to them could lead to loss of life and property, would you pass that on, even if you typically exclude sprinkler systems?



BTW, this has nothing to do with another thread, it is about safety of our clients.


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Joel Corwith
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



If I were looking at an excluded system which I did not have expertise in, I would recommend the client have that system inspected by a specialist. If I knew some fact about that system and was sure the client’s system was involved, I would point that out during the walk through but recommend in the report they have it inspected by a specialist. If I were trained in fire suppression systems, I would include in the contract what I’m inspecting beyond the exclusion in the standard, perform a complete system inspection and document the findings in my report. I might even have a separate (from the report) page explaining the recall. And no, I can not currently be certain I would recognize the Omega.


A failure in fire suppression, is a double failure. You had to have the fire first. A higher safety concern to my client is with the initial failure such as a built-in microwave oven or dishwasher that's been recalled (and must be inspected). Do you stop and print a list of all recalled appliances prior to each inspection, or followup after? Does anyone recommend the client search for recalled appliances in their report? Test for leaky microwaves?

And what of other excluded systems which may be subject to recall. Pool pump motors, lawn sprinklers, low voltage systems which might at some point cause personal injury or property damage.

If you learn the seller has included the trampoline as part of the sale, do you point out the extreme risk to personal injury there?

Joel. phx

I was at a pool party next door, the trampoline is with it's third owner and has been in the Arizona sun for years.


Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I have noted recalled appliances that I recognized as such. Like Isaid earlier, my attorney covered me with a phrase in my contract that just because I find one recal does not mean I have to find them all. Also I do refer them to CPSC.


You are right, the sprinkler failure would be secondary, but not all fires happen because of a malfunction. The leading causes are related to human error which can be lessened but will always remain. The recall affected MANY sprinklers, and a vast number of them are still in place. However, the risk is not that great, i just wanted to see if anyone would recognize that, and how they would report it. Many inspectors DO note recalls. For the most part, I would be suspicious of any sprinkler installed before 1998. They omegas are pretty recognizable by there design.


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com