Seller Fails to Disclose and Loses $103,366 in Lawsuit

The SOP saved the inspector, for the undisclosed damages were not readily visible.

It appears that justice can be served.

This is a case against an agent and a deceased seller not an inspector.

I think maybe the point is… Utilizing a good SOP, communicating the limitations of the inspection effectively to the client, and good documentation of defects found may have kept this inspector out of the lawsuit mix to begin with.

From the case, it doesn’t even look like the inspector was even considered to be part of it.

I think this might be an example of things working the way they are supposed to from the inspectors point of view.

I thought I said that.

In fact, it was a “shotgun” suit that originally included the agent, but the court could find no “conspiracy” and let the agent off.

I am of the belief that a carefully worded and well understood agreement between the buyer and the inspector ensured the clear understanding that areas not readily visible or accessible (under carpet, under exterior covering, etc) and WDI activity kept the inspector out of the shotgun blast.

I saw no inspection firm listed in the defendant list.

I did see this and wonder what they really meant.

I found this interesting…

Then what about this…

And this…

And this…

Now, given, I am in no sense whatsoever claiming to know squat about the law, but, this all seems contradictory to me.

I am very glad the HI did his/her job including following the SOP. Obviously it saved his/her bacon. I assume the realtor got off the hook, because of the wording in the Disclaimer, and no evidence of collusion.

Thanks for posting this James.

Where is a Home Inspector ever mentioned in this lawsuit?

Seems to me, if the inspector didn’t perform his/her dutiy, they most certainly would have been named in the suit.

Thanks Jefff. I read it twice and missed it.:shock:

Frankly I’m surprised the home inspector and/or the termite inspector wasn’t named in the suit.

We also don’t know if there was a separate termite inspector and it seems odd that he did not recommend treatment.

While it’s clear that the seller did not disclose and is at fault, I would be concerned as a buyer that the termite inspector did not find much damage or recommend treatment.

The seller lied and said that it was inspected and treatment was done. It is easier to believe that the seller refused to pay for treatment than to think a man in the business of selling it would not recommend it.


It would be fun to see the HI and termite report and see just what was reported.

In any case I’m glad justice was done in this case and that the sellers false disclosure was the issue and not some inspectors report.

Living in a house and knowing it’s history is important.

As an inspector I only a few hours to find all I can but sometimes your spidey sense does kick in.

Looking at the list of repairs, I would have included the home inspector and termite inspector in the suit.