Should home inspectors mention asbestos
Q: From time to time, your column addresses the subject of asbestos, and you sometimes refer to building materials as “possibly containing asbestos.”
As a home inspector, I've always tried to avoid "might be" types of wording with my customers. My reports state that “there was a time when asbestos building materials were used,” but I always follow this by explaining that “the only way you can verify asbestos content is by testing the material.” Don't you think that home inspectors should avoid suggesting what “could possibly be contained” in various materials, especially regarding hazardous substances that are outside the scope of a home inspection?
A: Without question, home inspectors should not identify materials as "asbestos-containing" without the support of laboratory analysis. However, materials such as acoustic ceiling texture and transite siding are commonly known, even among nonprofessionals, to be asbestos-containing in many instances. For a home inspector to say that such materials "possibly contain asbestos" is not an over-reach. These choices of wording, of course, are matter of personal opinion and have long been points of debate among home inspectors.
Those who oppose wording such as “possibly containing asbestos” are concerned primarily with liability. According to their view, if an inspector comments on any condition that is outside the scope of a home inspection (i.e. asbestos materials), that inspector can no longer deny responsibility for other issues that are outside the scope of an inspection, such as problems involving structural engineering, water quality, or geological stability.
The other side of the controversy is also based on liability concerns, but from a different perspective. When home inspectors say nothing about possible asbestos content, they can be sued for nondisclosure, even though such disclosures are outside the scope of the inspection.
If court rulings were always fair, inspectors could expect to win such cases; and even when courts rule fairly, the cost of justice is punctuated with dollar signs. Those of us with this view would rather tell a customer that there might be asbestos than to be sued when asbestos is discovered after the close of escrow.
In the final analysis, this is a business decision that each inspector must make. Basically, we can be damned if we disclose, and damned if we don't. It's a choice between one form of risk or the other. In this inspector's view, the better choice is disclosure.
Q: We are presently buying a 20-year-old home. The roof has never been replaced and our home inspector reported apparent hail damage. An insurance claim may have been filed at one time, but no evidence of repair work was reported. How can we check into this?
A: The sellers should be asked to provide copies of all roof-related documents as part of their disclosure statement. These should include related communications with their insurance company and copies of any contractors’ repair bids. Based upon your home inspector's findings, you should also request further evaluation by a licensed roofing contractor.
• Distributed by Action Coast Publishing. Questions to Barry Stone can be emailed to barry@housedetective.com.