Has anyone here sued their home inspector?

[Anonymous]

Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will cost you more to litigate than you will win to repair most likely.

OP doesn’t have to actually litigate. A written demand letter could get the inspector to cough up some money, especially with attached letters from 3 plumbers on letterhead stating this was a grossly negligent inspection report that misstated facts about the pipes.

The inspector may not want to risk getting dragged into litigation either, remember anyone can sue (or threaten to) for anything. I think OP at least has a colorable claim to argue break of contract due to gross negligence. I mean the inspector didn’t just miss something or make a vague assertion that turned out not to be true, but actually made a demonstrably false statement about the condition of the house.

OP, I think it’s worth at least sending a letter with the plumbers’ attachments and see if you can scare some money out of him. Even if you don’t get all the repairs covered, maybe you can negotiate something.

Lol. Don't play lawyer.

I am a lawyer. But I’m not giving legal advice. My suggestion was based on life experience.

Real life isn’t governed by case law and court rulings. OP is free to write a letter with attachments from people in the plumbing industry accusing this inspector of doing a poor job. He may give her a bit of money to avoid getting dragged into some small claims court headache (he doesn’t know what she’s willing to file) or to avoid a bad online review or complaint with a state agency.

Do you actually think the majority of disputes in this country are handled by lawyers?

Perhaps you should stop playing lawyer by pretending everything has to be resolved like some 1L contracts case law.

[Anonymous]

Fraud is "a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which a party relied." The standard is clear and convincing evidence.

What actual clear and convincing evidence do you have that the inspector knowingly misrepresented the type of pipes?

Assuming, none lets get the ridiculous and clearly slanderous accusation out of the way, being careful not to expose yourself to defamation liability.

This is not to say that he may not have been grossly negligent, but there is a world of difference between the two.

[Anonymous]

You should talk to your realtor who then needs to talk to the inspector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

The inspector paid out of pocket back to your clients? That's strange because the cost of an inspection isn't that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

The inspector paid out of pocket back to your clients? That's strange because the cost of an inspection isn't that much.

Yes he did. I have given him a ton of business in the last 15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fraud is "a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which a party relied." The standard is clear and convincing evidence.

What actual clear and convincing evidence do you have that the inspector knowingly misrepresented the type of pipes?

Assuming, none lets get the ridiculous and clearly slanderous accusation out of the way, being careful not to expose yourself to defamation liability.

This is not to say that he may not have been grossly negligent, but there is a world of difference between the two.

The prong of reliance is actually reasonable reliance. And it has to be prove. What would OP have done differently? Not bought the house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fraud is "a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact upon which a party relied." The standard is clear and convincing evidence.

What actual clear and convincing evidence do you have that the inspector knowingly misrepresented the type of pipes?

Assuming, none lets get the ridiculous and clearly slanderous accusation out of the way, being careful not to expose yourself to defamation liability.

This is not to say that he may not have been grossly negligent, but there is a world of difference between the two.

The prong of reliance is actually reasonable reliance. And it has to be prove. What would OP have done differently? Not bought the house?

Hmmmm
Hire a plumber to inspect the pipes
Looked up permitting on the house
Asked the seller’s agent
Looked over the disclosure
Realize the inspector could not possible know what he was talking about seeing as he did not bust thru the walls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

The inspector paid out of pocket back to your clients? That's strange because the cost of an inspection isn't that much.

Yes he did. I have given him a ton of business in the last 15 years.

FYI, that was a RESPA violation. He provided you something of value ($15-$20K) to a client to keep you in their good graces based on your history of sending him business and the expectation that if he failed to do so that you would withhold future business and that if you did so you would provide him future business. For those 2 individual clients it worked out well, but for your clients in general they are financially harmed, which is why it is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

And yet you kept recommending him? Buyers take note.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

The inspector paid out of pocket back to your clients? That's strange because the cost of an inspection isn't that much.

Yes he did. I have given him a ton of business in the last 15 years.

I mean, if this guy has a history of mucking things up, why are you still recommending him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. I have had two incidents with clients where the home inspector (whom I recommended) missed big issues. In both cases, I was able to help my clients get a large sum of money (one time $20k, one time almost $15k). Because I worked with this inspector a lot, he did not want to lose my business. No lawyer or litigation, I just talked to the inspector.

The inspector paid out of pocket back to your clients? That's strange because the cost of an inspection isn't that much.

Yes he did. I have given him a ton of business in the last 15 years.

I mean, if this guy has a history of mucking things up, why are you still recommending him?

+1000!

You need to find a new inspector.

[Anonymous]

What would OP have done differently?

Asked the seller’s agent

Lol!

Yeah.... ask the seller’s agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should talk to your realtor who then needs to talk to the inspector.

Who hired the inspector? OP. This is business between the inspector and OP.

That OP allowed a realtor to represent OP during an inspection is OP's fatal mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should talk to your realtor who then needs to talk to the inspector.

Who hired the inspector? OP. This is business between the inspector and OP.

That OP allowed a realtor to represent OP during an inspection is OP's fatal mistake.

You're basically suggesting the inspector and realtor colluded to make the report sound fine when it wasn't to make the sale go through. That's fraud.