BWA-HA-HA-HA.....

West Coast Jerry is about to throw the poor guy in jail and East Coast Jerry is trying to egg me into practicing my profession outside the state(s) in which I am licensed ...

Short answer: West Coast Jerry gave some good advice. Evaluating structural adequacy is a dangerous road to travel for a HI who is not a licensed design professional. As Bruce B. mentioned the HI should observe and report signs of non-performance, also having proper support of the beam is critical -- not only having enough bearing surface and a good load path down to the footings, but proper fastening of the jacks to the structure and proper blocking to keep the beams from rotating. Bruce K. is right that you need to factor in the width of the building (measured perpendicular to the ridge), the gap between the beams adds a wrinkle to the problem (which means you also need to look at how the parallel beams are fastened to each other, if at all), and my gut is agreeing with his statement that it "could be very close or over the span limit" -- even if all four 2x10s were built into a single girder*. Jon makes a good point about the trusses, if they were modified and not originally constructed that way.

All of this is pointing to: The HI can advise the client if this has performed ok up to this point in time and under the conditions at the time of the inspection. If the client wants to know if this is going to perform ok in the future under design loading conditions, they need to have a qualified PE look at it.

* Refer to 2006 IRC Tables 502.5(1) and 502.5(2).