Nolan Kienitz Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 This was on the local NBC TV station this evening (01/31/2014). Another chapter of this story will be on tomorrow evening (02/01/2014). Issues with CSST just don't seem to go away. A local DFW inspector is currently being sued due to a home that burned to the ground following a lighting strike that had "some" CSST installed. Lightning hit the home almost a year after he did the inspection. Insurance company is pointing fingers at everyone. Not sure how it will turn out for the inspector. Lightning Strikes home w/CSST. Burns and there is loss of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 He posted this on Inspection News I don't see any need to name him or his company. Just bad luck he was caught in the crossfire, IMO. Default "I just got sued: Lightning strike and CSST Just this week I received notice from an insurance company's legal firm that they are seeking a $103,000 reimbursement check from me for fire damage sustained from a lightning strike on a home I inspected 3 years ago. The lightning strike happened a year and half ago. The legal team went after the Ward company claiming defective csst. The Ward legal people pointed the finger at me because I failed to follow TREC sop "The inspector shall report as deficient appliances and metal pipes that are not bonded or grounded.' The one time I failed to mention this deficiency, is the one time lightning strikes that particular house. What are the odds. In the five years that I've been inspecting, only one time did I see the bonding cables on all metal piping and appliances in the attic. My insurance company is handling this. I'll keep you guys posted." Then a bunch of guys get on and nitter natter about what they think. Then the HI returns to declare - his insurance company no longer wants his business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 That inspector is a nice fellow, but has had more than one legal (E&O) hiccup along with complaints filed against him at TREC (our licensing agency) as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I'm guessing the E&O is going to instantly yield, demand the deductible and pay up. So seldom is so little planning done in maintaining an SOP. I believe a sharp EW could scare off the plaintiff. Bonding and grounding is designed after currents that could result in defects in a system that nominally handles manmade residential voltages. Lightning remains mysterious in some fundamental ways. Assuming the codes have a handle on anything lightning can do to a house is a fallacy. They're guessing. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Good point Marc. The assumption here is that bonding would have prevented a fire. A good lawyer would require them to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 It is a "shotgun" lawsuit, they can go on for years. Honestly, if I was hired to provide litigation support to the inspectors insurance company I would be telling them to settle if they can. With all of the information that home inspectors have been subjected to over the past 8+ years on the grounding of CSST and what can happen; any inspector who sees it and does not address it in their report is amiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I tell clients that it's doubtful that bonding alone will control what lightning could do. I also tell them that if CSST is not bonded, that's the first thing the tubing manufacturer will use as a reason to claim they're not responsible. "Dear Mr Homeowner, our product is safe when installed according to our instructions. The reason you have a loss in this case is lack of proper bonding" It's a way to shift the blame and redirect the attack at another entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.