‘Deal killer’ hopes to enlighten agents
Q: As a home inspector for many years, I try to do the best job I can to disclose all observable property defects. But when I talk to real estate agents, they continually brush me off as a possible deal killer or an unnecessary impediment to the closing of their deals. I try to convince them the full disclosure protects them from lawsuits, as well as protecting their buyers from financial loss. Do you have any statistics on lawsuits against agents that would help them see that a thorough home inspection actually protects them from being sued?
A: Disclosure lawsuits against real estate agents are reportedly on the rise, but statistics are not readily available. Whether these numbers would change many attitudes in the real estate industry is uncertain. There are agents who simply want to close escrow and do not believe that litigation can happen to them. The only remedy for that kind of denial is to get sued. Then they might understand that home inspectors protect their interests, not just the interests of homebuyers.
Every experienced home inspector knows the frustration of being labeled a “deal killer” simply for trying to do a good job for homebuyers. In fact, home inspection may be the only profession in which doing a good job can be bad for stimulating new business.
Fortunately, there are real estate agents who recognize the risks of disclosure liability and are governed by high ethical standards. They are the ones who appreciate the value of a truly qualified home inspector. All you can do is build your business on the support of those top quality agents, the ones who value excellence as much as you do.
Q: When we bought our condo, the home inspector stated in his report that the chimney was in good condition. After moving in, we noticed that it is actually leaning and appears unstable. Our contractor estimated about $2,000 in repairs.
When we notified the inspector, his response was angry and vitriolic. He said that because this is a condo, the chimney is part of the common area and, therefore, he is not liable. But his contract and the report both indicate that the roof and chimney were included in the inspection. What is your view of this situation?
A: Home inspectors should report conditions that are visible, accessible, and within the specified scope of the inspection. A defective chimney certainly meets those three criteria, especially if the chimney was mentioned in the inspection report.
The inspector's disagreeable response does not speak well for his competence, professionalism or ethics. Neither does his unwillingness to take responsibility for faulty disclosure of a significant defect. If his report includes portions of the exterior, and if he addressed the chimney in his report, then he cannot disclaim the chimney as a component that is outside the scope of the inspection. The fact that the chimney is in a common area of the condo complex may determine who is responsible for the repair work, but it has no bearing the home inspector's responsibility to provide disclosure. If he is unwilling to respond in a more professional manner, a local small claims judge might alter his perspective.
• Distributed by Action Coast Publishing. Questions to Barry Stone can be emailed to barry@housedetective.com.