Houston Inspector lawsuit ... OVER !!

[Nolan Kienitz]

At long last the Houston, TX lawsuit with a "seller" suing a home inspector is finally over.

It was termed a "take nothing judgment" ... meaning that there were no awards and that each party walked away. Albeit both sides still had their respective legal fells to pay/absorb.

You can imagine the pucker factor had this been found in favor of the seller and what the ultimate implication would have been for all of us inspectors. E&O would have gone to the moon unless they just canceled period. Thank goodness we don't have to go there for now anyway.

I was just reminded this Sunday AM that the motion is still awaiting the final signature from the judge.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Seller was lawyer suiting Home Inspector for reporting obvious defects and areas of concern. Suit was groundless, baseless.

Sad the HI (and insurer) stuck with defense costs, but at least the ordeal is over.

I updated with a cross link on original thread. Thanks for posting the news N.K.

(original thread): http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/business-operations-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/15589-texas-lawsuit-seller.html#post140726

[Erby Crofutt]

So, according to the linked PDF, they SETTLED OUT OF COURT. Wonder what they settled on.


-

[Russel Ray]

So, according to the linked PDF, they SETTLED OUT OF COURT. Wonder what they settled on.
That doesn't sound like you, Erby.

Did you not read the PDF, all three pages?

[Randy Aldering]

The document indicates they settled on an unspecified compromise. Not sure why the inspection firm agreed to adsorb the cost of litigation, though it apparently may not have been their decision. The inspection firm may see increased premiums, I would think. If the seller's suit was indeed baseless, they should be paying through the nose for the trouble they caused. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[Ed Wood]

The document indicates they settled on an unspecified compromise. Not sure why the inspection firm agreed to adsorb the cost of litigation, though it apparently may not have been their decision. The inspection firm may see increased premiums, I would think. If the seller's suit was indeed baseless, they should be paying through the nose for the trouble they caused. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Randy: Insurance companies usually opt for the least qualified, and therefore least expensive, attorneys to defend these cases. If all they experience is a premium increase passed along to the client, what do they care?

[Erby Crofutt]

Yes, Russel, I did.

Especially the part about "they have reached a compromise and settlement of all claims and causes of action asserted herein and, pursuant to the terms of their settlement agreement"

In other words, they settled out of court and there won't be any judgements.

What are you referring to??

-