Massachusetts Takes Action Against Home Inspectors

[hausdok]

BOSTON, March 5 -- The Massachusetts Office for Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation issued the following news release:

The Board of Registration of Home Inspectors ("the Board") today announced enforcement actions against the following individuals:

John R. Bovill, Chelmsford: The Board entered into a consent agreement with Bovill, resolving allegations that he included language in his Inspection Agreement that could be interpreted to limit his liability with respect to third party lawsuits. To read more, click here.

[tim5055]

From reading the article it appears that there is money to be made in MA by teaching classes on HI report writing.

[John Kogel]

Apparently home inspectors are not allowed to limit their liability. So they are expected to have unlimited liability? [:-party]

[Marc]

Seems that the MA HI regulatory body mandates this insurance coverage and sets the terms. The Board is fining two of the six who attempted to change those terms, to deny liability to some and to extend the protection to those who were referring the inspector - agents?

The other 4 simply didn't do their jobs, resulting in damages to the consumer.

MA is more progressive than most other states in regulating HI's, IMHO

Marc

[Nolan Kienitz]

Texas TREC just put into play a new SOP and Report Template (01/01/2014) and there is a proposal out already to be discussed at an upcoming meeting that will put some verbiage in the report template and rules that will deal with limiting liability in some way or another.

I'm still a bit fuzzy on what I've read so far. Seems like TREC is trying to get any/all limiting language out of any TREC promulgated document. This is not to say an inspector can't have a "separate" document with such verbiage, but it appears they are trying to distance such from anything TREC touches.

That being said ... if/when approved there will be yet another new template that will be produced. Albeit ... just some verbiage being added as best I can decipher at this time.

Gotta love it ...

[Marc]

Beloved friend of TIJ Joe Ferry - [:-devil] - has a website article on contract verbiage that limits liability to the inspection fee. He says he doesn't know why any inspector with 300K in E&O would do such a thing to his clients. It's like paying a $3,000 premium to protect the client against damages by the inspector then saying in contract verbiage 'no, you can't touch it'.

Marc

[John Kogel]

Beloved friend of TIJ Joe Ferry - [:-devil] - has a website article on contract verbiage that limits liability to the inspection fee. He says he doesn't know why any inspector with 300K in E&O would do such a thing to his clients. It's like paying a $3,000 premium to protect the client against damages by the inspector then saying in contract verbiage 'no, you can't touch it'.

Marc

My take on that strategy is this - The limitation to the inspection fee helps to take care of nuisance or trivial complaints.

They can get their money back without involving a lawyer and the insurance provider. Mr. Ferry is a lawyer so naturally he would want to be involved and can't see why not. []

But what is this horsecrap about allowing 3rd party lawsuits against the inspector? Who are these law makers representing and what are they trying to protect? The practice of passing inspection reports on to 3rd parties for free? Why are inspectors standing for it?

[Jim Katen]

Beloved friend of TIJ Joe Ferry - [:-devil] - has a website article on contract verbiage that limits liability to the inspection fee. He says he doesn't know why any inspector with 300K in E&O would do such a thing to his clients. It's like paying a $3,000 premium to protect the client against damages by the inspector then saying in contract verbiage 'no, you can't touch it'.

Marc

Because the E&O is there to protect the inspector, not the customer.

[Nolan Kienitz]

Beloved friend of TIJ Joe Ferry - [:-devil] - has a website article on contract verbiage that limits liability to the inspection fee. He says he doesn't know why any inspector with 300K in E&O would do such a thing to his clients. It's like paying a $3,000 premium to protect the client against damages by the inspector then saying in contract verbiage 'no, you can't touch it'.

Marc

Because the E&O is there to protect the inspector, not the customer.

In reality and practice that is true. Albeit I had one potential client (repeat: "potential") demand that I told her how much my E&O coverage was and who the carrier was.

These were almost the first words out of her mouth on the call. I advised her that I had coverage, but that it was not her business to know any more and that the coverage was for my protection.

Her response was that she HAD to know so that she would know how much she could sue me for should I miss something from the home inspection.

Goes without saying I was close to dumbfounded, but maintained my composure and told her I was too busy for her inspection. She did a lot of stammering and peddling, but I repeated that I would not be doing any inspection for her.

... Takes all kinds it seems.

[hausdok]

Beloved friend of TIJ Joe Ferry - [:-devil] - has a website article on contract verbiage that limits liability to the inspection fee. He says he doesn't know why any inspector with 300K in E&O would do such a thing to his clients. It's like paying a $3,000 premium to protect the client against damages by the inspector then saying in contract verbiage 'no, you can't touch it'.

Marc

He doesn't hang out here since he bet me $2000 that I couldn't produce proof about how a lawsuit was settled. When I produced the proof he disappeared in a puff of smoke. Never saw the $2K - big surprise.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike