I think the biggest issue with SOP’s is the inspectors who do not come close to producing a report that even meets the SOP.
The first thing I learned in this business is how little the agents know about home inspections in this area. Why? Because so few of the inspectors produce a detailed report that follows the SOP. So when anyone actually does one correctly, the agents flip out.
lol Could raise the question is NACHI a liability to non licensed states since the SOP is a mere guidance tool? Will I understand completely the difference. However what I don’t understand is how some of these people are getting sued when the step outside of the SOP to better their services for themself and their client. I’m lost. How can a court hold one accountable if no law’s exist? The inspector met the SOP however he went over and beyound and who’s to say he can’t? How can Insurance companies deny claims if no law is broke?
Bill
I say letthe Insurance carriers write the SOP for those whom wish to follow their guidlines.
Does anyone have exact and explicit stories to tell of how exceeding the SOP cost them money in court,?
No rumors please.
Lets divide into two groups.
Guess which group will succeed?
Seems like a no brainer.
Jim I see your point clearly and it makes perfect sense. However, what happens if one meets the SOP but decides to go above and beyond and doesn’t modify their contract/SOP accordingly?
Bill
The key is to be consistant and recomend follow up by a licensed and certified individual.
We are generalists and everything is opinion.
Fact,Opinion,and Guidance.
This was taught by my original Instructor and is excellent advise.
Your carrier agrees to cover you on the condition that you inspect in accordance with the NACHI SOP.
The carrier is comfortable with the margin of error that SOP allows when it requires the inspector to inspect a “representative number of switches and receptacles”. Since it only takes one bad switch to burn a house to the ground, he is comfortable that the inspector he insures will not be held accountable for the integrity of every switch and receptacle in the house when he does an inspection.
Inspector Loudmouth says, on his website, that he “exceeds” the NACHI SOP.
“How do you do that?” the client asks.
“Well, I inspect every single switch and receptacle in the house, for one thing…(and adds several other items to his list).”
A month after closing, the house burns down due to a broken receptacle that was hidden behind a stack of drywall on the basement floor.
The client decides to sue. The insurance company decides that the inspector’s claims and his actions did not match the policy. He agreed to comply with the SOP. Had they known of his policy to “exceed” it, they may have wished to charge him a higher rate due to the increased liability…but never got the chance.
They have the right, under these circumstances, to deny his claim.
Thank you Robert! I’ve been preaching this for ever. However I get constant grief about it. I was taught this as well and it makes perfect sense.
Bill
That would be wayyy to easy.
Hopefully, nothing will happen. If something bad does result from it, however, the inspector may find himself engaged as an unwilling participant in an unprotected act of litigant love.
I hope all of my competiters decide to never exceed SOP.
Damn, I am not sure what I would do with all the business.
Thanks Jim. Valid point. Makes perfect sense. Let’s talk service life. This is the doozy I’m confused on. If a person states a system is beyond it’s serviceable life on a report they are stepping outside of the SOP. Am I correct? The system fails down two weeks later. How can the inspector be held liable?
So bottom line is so were all clear on this. Step out of your SOP your walking around with nothing on but your underwear. Correct?
The CMI I trained under preached the SOP all the time and didn’t like stepping to far from it. He kept busy constantly. Why because he took time to educate both the client and the realtor if available. He had the gift to gab and controlled both his clients and the realtors expectations.
Bill
The inspector I think you are referring to was a victim of a “shotgun” lawsuit where the attorney names in the suit every single person/entity that played any part in the client’s action of buying the property.
Nothing…not even the 41 pages of disclaimers that some people incorporate into their software for writing reports…can stop anyone from being named in a lawsuit.
Being named in a suit requires a decision on your part as to whether the amount of money that it will cost to defend yourself will exceed the amount of money you can settle with.
When you decide to stick it out and fight your case…then what you did, or did not do, by the SOP is relevant.
When you make any modifications to the standard of practice, it should be agreed upon in advance (and documented) between you and your client. If it is not…and should the action result in a claim against you by the client…then you will have a problem.
This is important to remember, IMO.
An error or an omission entitles a plaintiff to real damages. I lost a $500 widget as a result of your error, you owe me $500. Breach of contract or negligence, however, carries punitive damages…which plaintiff’s attorneys will seek first.
Did you agree to perform in accordance with the SOP? Did they pay you to inspect in accordance with the SOP? Then, please explain to the court what right you think you had to do otherwise.
Makes perfect sense to me. Where did everyone go? lol I like to hear if someone disagrees with this one. Your simply stating it’s fine to step outside as long as you document your doing so.
Bill
Hey Billy was your instructor Chucky.B
This gets over into an area I have harped on for years and that is the HI troubleshooting a piece of equipment, trying to impress their client or figure out “what” is wrong with it. NOT our job. If it does not work normally, note it, move along. In a rush to be the “One” many are getting into areas outside their training, licensing and capabilities. Certainly well outside the scope and SOP.
Simply reading through this thread, thus far, brings something to light that I think should be addressed.
Apparently, some folks are thinking they are “exceeding” the SOP when, in fact, they are not.
Walking a roof versus observing from the ground with binoculars, for example, does not exceed the SOP. The SOP provides for a variety of ways to inspect a roof…as long as it is inspected and included in a report. Observing it by any of the described means is performing the standard.
The SOP defines some services that are not a normal part of the inspection, such as termite inspections, mold inspections, and radon inspections. Those who have these certifications can perform these and usually do at an additional charge as an extra service…not as part of the standard of practice.
Now, I have read of one guy with an HVAC background who actually performs an HVAC service call as part of his inspection. He will test relays, etc…because he knows how and likes doing it. He would like us to think that we all should. Particularly, in his market, he uses that to set himself apart from his competitors. This is a business decision on his part and he assumes the risk.
I really wonder, though, what many are referring to when they say they that they “exceed” the SOP.
How about testing appliances?