Home Inspection Claims Can Be Managed!

The problem with receiving a demand letter from a former client or his lawyer is that it
has to be responded to whether or not the claim has merit.

Most claims against home inspectors lack merit for one or more reasons. Generally,
meritless claims fall into one of five categories. It seeks damages for something for
which the home inspection is not responsible. In other words, the item for which the
claimant is seeking redress is something that is beyond the ability of a home inspector
to determine. Or it seeks damages for an item that is outside the Standard of Practice
under which the inspection is being conducted. Or it seeks damages for an item that
was concealed from the home inspector?s view at the time of the inspection. Or it seeks
damages for an item for which the home inspector disclaimed responsibility because of
inability to access the area of the home that contained that item. Or, astonishingly, it
seeks damages for something that the home inspector actually found and wrote up in
his inspection report.

There is a home inspector in New Jersey for whom I have written responses to three
separate demand letters from former clients. All three of these claims were abandoned
following my response.

This particular inspector happens to be an excellent inspector with vast experience and
is extraordinarily busy. He conducts about 500 to 600 inspections a year. Not only is he
an excellent inspector and highly reputable, he?s an extraordinarily nice and generous
man. He mentors new inspectors.

Because he does so many inspections annually, he has greater exposure to becoming a
victim of a meritless claim by sheer dint of the number of inspections that he is
conducting each year. Just as a driver who puts 50,000 miles on his car annually is
more likely to have an accident than a driver who only drives 10,000 miles, the more
successful you are as a home inspector, the more likely you are to be a victim of one of
these meritless claims.

In one of the cases, he had performed an inspection for a client and in his report, he
pointed out that the roof was “nearing the end of its useful life” and cautioned the client
that the roof would not last much longer. In the same report, he was unable to get into
the attic of the house due to excessive clutter. He was only able to pop his head into the
attic and shine his flashlight around the ceiling of the attic.

As it happened, beyond the farthest rafter and, therefore, beyond his ability to see, there
was an active moisture stain. Since the attic was inaccessible, he disclaimed
responsibility for any roof problems that might elude detection for that reason.
After the client moved into the house, he discovered that the roof leaked at the very
point of the attic that was not viewable at the time of the inspection due to the clutter. As
a result, the client wanted the home inspector to buy him a new roof.

The home inspector forwarded the letter to me for response. I pointed out to the
claimant that he had no case against the home inspector because the inspector had
advised him that the roof was in need of replacement and had disclaimed responsibility
for the part of the attic that was inaccessible. Therefore, the home inspector was not
negligent.

Furthermore, since the claimant had been told that the roof was near death, it was
incumbent upon the claimant to factor that into his negotiation calculus. Since he did not
do so, he was contributorily negligent, a circumstance that would bar any recovery in
negligence.

Finally, I pointed out that even if the home inspector had been negligent, and even if the
claimant had not been contributorily negligent, he still would not have been entitled to a
new roof.

Under the Law of Damages, the only remedy that was available to him was replacement
of the defective shingles - about 4 square feet - depreciated by the 23 year age of the
roof. In other words, bupkus!

The claimant was not happy and by and by I received a letter from an attorney seeking
a new roof. I called the attorney and when he came on the line, I greeted him and then
asked him what he was “doing with this farkakte case!” Even if you know no Yiddish,
you can probable ascertain what farkakte means.

That question, coming out of the mouth of this first-generation Irish-Catholic, always has
a disarming effect on my Jewish colleagues. And it did not disappoint this time. The
attorney immediately began moonwalking away from the size of the claim. [“Look I know
he?s not entitled to a new roof but can you get $3,000 or $4,000?”]
So I had to advise the attorney that, not only was his client not entitled to a new roof, he
was not entitled to anything!

I told him to watch my video and “call me back in ten minutes.” Chastened, he called me
back and said “See if your guy is willing to throw anything at this case.”
So I did.

The client, having seen me get rid of two prior claims, said “Joe, I trust you. Use your
judgment. I?m willing to pay up to $1000 to make this go away.”

So, I drafted a letter to the claimant?s attorney.

In the letter I reiterated all the reasons why the claimant was not entitled to anything: the
home inspector was not negligent, the claimant was negligent, and even if the home
inspector had been negligent, which the incontrovertible evidence conclusively had
established that he was not, and even if the claimant had not been negligent, which the
incontrovertible evidence conclusively had established that he was, he still would not be
entitled to anything!

But . . . I wrote, in the interest of client relations and to put this issue behind us, my
client will make a goodwill payment of $500.00 in exchange for a complete release of
liability.

So the letter was written. And I did not feel good about it.
As is my practice, I printed the letter out to proofread. As I was reading all the reasons
why the claimant was not entitled to anything, it started to get my Irish up. Why, I asked
myself, with all of these compelling reasons to deny this claim outright, am I giving this
goniff anything.

So I rewrote the letter to delete the payment and substituted this:
“For $350, home inspectors are not expected to take a house apart and put it back
together again. No reasonable person expects that. My client did point out significant
problems with the roof that should have put your client on notice that there were major
problems with the roof that warranted his attention. His decision not to act on that
advice would bar all recovery under the Economic Damages Doctrine.
Accordingly, his claim is denied.”

I never heard from that attorney again.

How can you protect yourself from these frivolous claims?

To answer that question, I developed the Law and Disorder Seminar.

In this seminar, you will learn:

The 5 HABITS you MUST DEVELOP to lower your risk profile

How to establish the KILLER DEFENSE that will defeat ALL negligence claims

The MAGIC CONTRACT PROVISION that will DECREASE your LIABILITY, INCREASE
your INSPECTION FEES, and SMOKE YOUR COMPETITION all at the same time
The MAGIC CONTRACT PROVISION that will PREVENT your client from TAKING YOU
TO COURT

The 7 KEY FEATURES of a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RESPONSE LETTER

The 7 KEY PROVISIONS that every Pre-Inspection should have.

How to TRANSFORM yourself from a VICTIM to an ALLY of the claimant

 Email This Post