Per Real Estate Consultants: Sue the HI. He has insurance!

Read this article from the Wall Street Journal real estate specialist…and read it very carefully.

How did this end up that the reply turned mostly to the inspector which stated to get it further examined by an expert. It should of said the inspector did his job! And thank you, Mallory Anderson for advertising to sue us. This peice of work (for lack of better terms) is an executive director of NAHI? If this don’t set the members off then they are completely in the dark at the very least. I wonder if this lady that represents NAHI understands the damage this could do. We can only hope the rest of the flock will stand up and take it to her.
Sorry just pi$$ed about this.Great post James.


The home inspector deferred the foundation to an expert. The real estate salesman arranged for the “expert” and an opinion was given to the client that appears to be errant.

Solution? Sue the inspector. Why? According to Mallory, because he is insured for that purpose.

Un-F***'en- believable! She needs to be shot, and Mr Hagerty needs to be educated about NACHI, and re-educated about NAHI. Maybe an email to him with a link to the story about NAHI trying to influence ASTM.

Agreed Kenneth
Get enough on board maybe we can get a retraction or a little more investigative reporting instead of this fly by the seat of your pants crap, as usual.
James, I truley hope this will bring a lot of responses as it should. Should be an interesting conversation. By the way, I just got my renewal notice for insurance today. Seriously thinking about cutting the amount way down. For all my services it is around $5250.00 a year. What a rip off!

Odd article indeed. Engineering firms generally also carry E&O insurance.

Staff reporter for the WSJ. That should have reached a couple million folks! Now isn’t that just peachy.

Apparently Mallory must have her head up her butt to recommend that the inspector should be sued. I am glad we have Nick.

Sounds like an engineer came out (from the insurance company) and
confirmed the fist inspectors findings about the foundation.

The Realtor’s company (2nd inspector?) might be holding the bag on this
one. If the 2nd guy wrote an easy report to please the Realtor, then why
should I feel sorry for him? I think he will be the one being sued.

I get called out to help clients nail the easy boy inspectors all the time.
Easy inspectors cause a lot of pain. I think the first inspector is clear.

Is it wrong to sue a company that did you wrong? Are we going
to all say now that none of us will ever sue anyone for doing us
wrong? I am not going to promote frivolous law suites, but I am
not going to condemn someone who gots screwed by the
Realtors negligent inspector #2. Why not go after the Realtor and
the first engineer too? Did I miss something.?

BTW… if a client shows you an engineers report that say the
foundation is OK… don’t accept his findings. Overrule him
if needed. I have seen plenty of engineers who work for the
Realtors too.

It really does not matter if an article is written on how to sue
an inspector. I think most people have figured out they can
sue anyone, if it warrants it. Most people already expect
professionals to carry some kind of insurance anyway.

We may not like it, but we are never going back to the
days of no rules, no laws, and no responsibility. The
HI industry is coming of age and will follow the path
of more oversight. I may not like it, but I am not
living in the fantasy that it will not happen. It’s coming.

John…you need to get off of whatever medication you are on that has given you the delusions that have prompted your posts in the last week or so.

The home inspector, here, recommended an expert review and report. That is all. This review was handled by the real estate salesman and (of course) found there to be no problems with the foundation.

So far, only you and Mallory Anderson have suggested the home inspector to be at fault.

This happened, by the way, in your very strictly controlled and licensed state. Your advocating additional “oversight” is absolutely absurd.

**I advocate that the second company (which I take to mean a second
inspector) is at fault and would be open to liability… as well as
the Realtor (if they worked together in a wrong way) and the
first engineer (who said there was nothing wrong).

I feel that inspector #1 is not guilty.

Does that make it clear now.

I also stated that I do not think it is the correct view that
inspectors should be immune from all liability… in so
many words.

My point John was the article was mainly about the home inspector. Mallory is an idiot! The home inspector done his job and should have got an “atta boy” instead of the ways you can sue the inspector. Since the home inspector seems to be the only one to call out the issue then why am I not understanding your rationale. Yes, I see you said the home inspector did good, basically, in your second post. Does it not make you mad that at the very least an exec from another HI organization basically says just sue the inspector. Not to say the thousands of WSJ readers that have the opportunity to read it for which a green light may have went off in somes heads saying “Wow I can find something to sue our inspector, surely I can find something wrong”. We don’t need to advertise it when the home inspector did his job and this Mallory kook did just that. Lawsuits in this country are easy enough to file and get a favorable judgment in this country.

Never mind my post John, I think I understand you now. Sometimes one needs to read something twice before understanding.

OK… It was my fault for not making myself clear enough.

I think a company came out means engineer

Jim, When was this published?