Home inspector ignores known fire hazard
Q: When I bought my house, the home inspector reported no problems with the main electrical panel. After moving in, my insurance company requested a photograph of the panel. I sent the photo, and they replied with a cancellation notice, stating that Federal Pacific breaker panels are fire hazards and must be replaced. The new panel cost me $1,850.
When I called the home inspector, he admitted that Federal Pacific panels are hazardous but said he had no obligation to include this in his report. He said 30% of old homes he inspects have these panels and routine disclosures of this kind would cause many deals to fall out of escrow, exposing him to lawsuits from sellers. This sounds crazy to me and has me considering small claims court against the inspector. Do you think he is liable?
A: Your inspector needs a refresher course in basic common sense. Simply stated, he failed to disclose an electrical condition that is a known fire hazard. Then he compounded this illogic by claiming he was not required to provide disclosure: that he was more focused on the concerns of the sellers than those of his clients. On the basis of such thinking, a home inspector could avoid reporting any and all hazardous conditions, including defective heating fixtures, substandard fireplaces, damaged balcony railings, etc.
The essential purpose of a home inspection is to represent the interests of homebuyers by reporting observable conditions that could be of concern or consequence, particularly with regard to safety.
By all means, give him the opportunity to declare his defense to a small claims judge. Aside from reclaiming the cost of your new electrical panel, it would be interesting to observe the judge's reaction to the inspector's outlandish arguments.
Q: We bought our home about six weeks ago. At the time, our home inspector found no problems with the plumbing, other than a leaky sink faucet. But now our bathtub is backing up and our toilet won't flush. We believe this is a preexisting condition because the floor under the toilet appears to have been replaced recently.
How can we resolve this plumbing problem? Are the sellers liable for nondisclosure? And is our home inspector liable for negligence?
A: Sewage backups after the close of escrow are often matters of unfortunate timing, arising from causes that may or may not have been known to the sellers and may not have been apparent at the time of the home inspection. It all depends upon whether there have been past or ongoing drainage problems experienced by the sellers. The home inspector could only have known of past or likely issues if symptoms were apparent during the inspection. The fact that the flooring under the toilet was recently replaced is an indication of past leakage at the toilet seal, rather than a sewage backup.
At this point, the cause of the sewage backup needs to be determined by a licensed plumber. It could be something as simple as roots in the sewer main or something more costly such as a deteriorated main line. A video inspection of the sewer lines would provide the most comprehensive analysis.
• Email Barry Stone at barry@housedetective.com.
© 2023, Action Coast Publishing