Sellers advised not to hide past bad inspection reports.

If the client who orders the inspection chooses not to buy, the seller doesn’t own the report so can’t show it nor hold ownership of the report.

The new buyer can’t rely on it becuase the new buyer isn’t the inspector’s client, but if the seller has negative information (in the form of a written report or otherwise) about the home, he/she should disclose that information to future potential buyers. The seller could have only received a copy of the report with the buyer’s permission and since the buyer has walked, there is no duty to the buyer on behalf of the seller to keep the findings secret, instead, the reverse is true as we see by this article.

Many Realtors know about previous inspection reports and choose to forget
about those defects when a new buyers comes along. I have seen it many times.
They ask for a copy of the report, but choose not to disclose it to the next buyer.

Apparently, you’ve never done business in CA :wink:

CA has some of the most stringent disclosure laws in the country. As such, the standard CA purchase agreement entitles a seller to a complete copy of any and all inspections reports, that a potential buyer has prepared on the property.

Almost the same in PA where if the buyer requests any repairs/credits, the seller is entitled to a copy of the full report.

Lorne Steiner seems to think that future new buyers who are not clients of the inspector, may not just be entitled to the report but also rely on the report too, but I can find no such CA law supporting that contention.

And, I might add, at no charge to the seller!

My attorneys seem to think the same thing, as do I. I suspect the thinking comes via case law with the 2001 Leko Decision. It’s one of the wackiest court cases I’ve ever read. They went off on so many tangents that one needs a road map to follow along. I read it before I jumped into the home inspection business in July 2001 and simply decided that with good E&O, great inspections, and excellent educational reports, I’d be okay.

Like in PA, it is good that it is at* no* charge. The “charge” is what allows one to not just access, but to also rely on (hold the inspector responsible for errors within) the report. Charging someone is the act that makes them your client.

Of course, California courts can make someone our Clients, too, with or without charge!

Get out now, before it falls into the sea.

Did you ever see the movie “10.5”? Pretty cool. I’m just waitin’. When it’s my time to go, it’s my time to go.

Russell and I have discussed this subject many times in the past. CREIA changed their California inspection agreement after the Leko decision. The Judge ruled that since the inspector provided a copy of the finished report directly to the listing agent, he had a reasonable expectation the report would be given to and or benefit the seller. They further ruled since the inspector was the conduit for delivery of the inspection to the listing agent and seller, the inspectors liability would extend to any and all subsequent purchasers of the property. Keep in mind the inspector my have never met and or communicated with any of these other prospective buyers or been compensated by any of them. My attorney, insurance carrier and CREIA believe that our inspection reports should be provided to our client and or the clients agent “Only”. This may provide an extra layer of protection should your inspection report be used by another buyer of the property.

And now, rebuttal by Russell who I think believes that copies of the report should be given to buyers, sellers, agents, neighbors and posted on you tube for all to see…

I’m kidding, I’m kidding;-)

Definitely not “should be.” Instead, “can be.”