I read an article today (Polybutyleme for inspectors) in relation to the Plumbing portion of the CPI certification courses. The article mentioned that InterNachi inspectors were not required to include the presence of PB Supply/Plumbing Lines on their report. Why is this?
So that if an inspector misses it, for whatever reason, be it hidden or the inspector didn’t look carefully, he/she will not automatically be liable for damages due to its presence. Prudence says to exceed the SOP and make note of its presence.
8 Likes
Not all of it was defective.
4 Likes
To limit liability, for the inspector and for InterNACHI if the inspector offers the Buy Back guarantee.
Keep in mind, if you practice in a regulated state, your state SOP may require you to describe the water supply material.
1 Like
Not sure as to why INACHI does not require it as the majority of the SOP’s that home inspectors work under will require the inspector to Identify/ Describe the interior water supply, drain, waste, and vent piping materials.
2 Likes
^ This
You should absolutely call it out if you see it.
But if it wasn’t obvious or visible, you can’t automatically be sued.
2 Likes
That’s what I was leaning towards.
Yes I just looked at the CAHPI SOP (I’m in Ontario Canada which is currently unregulated) and thats exactly what it states. “1. water supply, distribution, drain, waste, and
vent piping materials.”
That is because CAPHI based their standards on the ASHI Standards as have most of the regulated states in the USA.
2 Likes
They require their inspectors to describe the wire type, the insulation type, the wall covering type, the fireplace type, the roofing type, and the foundation type, but not pipe type. And then they SPECIFICALLY exclude PB, a type of piping that they teach their students is defective. The reason is fairly obvious.
3 Likes
Do tell…
He may be referring to the PB that has been in use for the last 30+ years that hasn’t failed.
2 Likes
One of the main reasons for failure was chemical reactions. Not all municipalities or private systems have the same disinfectants or levels of chlorine for example. Pipes with copper fittings/crimps fair better. Basically, it is defective in certain environments and installation variations. PB is still out there and performing. Most of the bad stuff is long gone.
I’m not 100% sure why NACHI skips it, but I suspect that had something to do with it.
I report water pipe type where visible and I report on the presence of PB to include commonly known high failure rate.
4 Likes
i wonder if that had anything to do with the mchm spill in wv a little over a decade ago. lots of plastic pipes were coming loose due to the chemicals in the water after wv american water tried to kill ~300,000 of us. yeah, that shit was nasty. but it’s ok, they gave all the affected folks abut $700 after the payout. (do i need the /s for that last part?)
2 Likes
And what is that?
L-I-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y
While liability might be the reason, I feel an inspector has more liability for not reporting on PB piping since it is known to be problamatic. This is where the “Standard of Care” come into play.
Just my opinion.
5 Likes
I remember a thread a while back (2016-2017) where a newer inspector asked if he was liable for the $10,000 quote a plumber gave to a homeowner for PB that the inspector missed, but had not failed. I can’t find the thread so I’m thinking it must be in the member only forum. But the advice other members gave him was to “open his checkbook”. I have never understood this advice given the other members knew nothing about any extenuating circumstances that may have existed.
1 Like