Plumbing leak during inspection: home owner wants me to pay

[Randall Clark]

Inspected a 20 year old home today. I was filling up the second floor master jacuzzi tub and it got about 1/3 of the way full when the seller/owner yelled there was water leaking on the first floor. The fixture was apparently bad and water leaked from under the tub through the laundry ceiling below. I helped the owner clean up the water and there is no visible damage to the ceiling other than a small wet spot.

So, there is a larger old stain around the fresh wet spot on the ceiling, indicating prior leakage. Plumber came out and said, "the o-ring was blown out. Possibly from inspector turning on fixture too hard or running both hot and cold at the same time". There are two handles - hot and cold.

The buyer's agent said the listing agent is asking me to turn in a claim on my E & O. Total cost of repair will be less than $300. I'm not filing a claim as my deduct is way more and this is silly.

Question is, would you pay for all of the repair, some of the repair or tell them to stuff it?

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Inspected a 20 year old home today. I was filling up the second floor master jacuzzi tub and it got about 1/3 of the way full when the seller/owner yelled there was water leaking on the first floor. The fixture was apparently bad and water leaked from under the tub through the laundry ceiling below. I helped the owner clean up the water and there is no visible damage to the ceiling other than a small wet spot.

So, there is a larger old stain around the fresh wet spot on the ceiling, indicating prior leakage. Plumber came out and said, "the o-ring was blown out. Possibly from inspector turning on fixture too hard or running both hot and cold at the same time". There are two handles - hot and cold.

The buyer's agent said the listing agent is asking me to turn in a claim on my E & O. Total cost of repair will be less than $300. I'm not filing a claim as my deduct is way more and this is silly.

Question is, would you pay for all of the repair, some of the repair or tell them to stuff it?

Explain your regret to the under handed bottom of the deck vendors agent in person. ;)

1: Explain that the vendor did not advise the purchaser or yourself in the sellers decoration about jacuzzi tub defect, or other underlying plumbing or water intrusion issues, seeing there is old staining on the ceiling.
2: Explain to the old fox/foxiess that if he/she feels he or his client wish to peruse a claim on your E&O, or elsewhere, you will introduce the sellers decoration not being transparent, along with the many other items I am sure you can muster up in your report.

3: Tell him/her/highness, you are sorry, but he would best explain to his client that a sellers decoration is binding and admissible in a purchasers claim for many years after they sell the home:-)

I am sure you will hear the last of the sly old fellow/feline.

[Mark Reinmiller]

No. If all you did was turn on the fixture, it is not your fault that it leaked. I would also like to have the plumber? show me where it says you are not supposed to turn on the hot and cold at the same time. What an idiot.

[Jerry Peck]

Plumber came out and said, "the o-ring was blown out. Possibly from inspector turning on fixture too hard or running both hot and cold at the same time". There are two handles - hot and cold.

Tell the agent that the plumber is responsible because they failed to put warning tags on those faucets which stated NOT to turn both on at the same time (they are made to both be turned on at the same time, that is how one adjusts the water temperature) and they also forgot to put warning tags on NOT to turn the handles all the way (the handles are made to be turned all the way, otherwise the manufacturer would put stops in them or a mechanism to slow the turning of the faucet down to a safe 'turn speed').

Tell the agent that your consultation fee for the advice for the plumber's lack of warning tags is $500, but you will be willing to call it even if the plumber apologizes to the seller, the buyer, both agents, and you ... in writing ... for the plumber being such a jerk as to even try to pull that one off.

[Eric Barker]

Such a claim would fall under a liability policy, not E&O.

I don't know of a hydro-massage tub manufacturer who says that you should only run either hot or cold at one time. I have encountered quite a few plumbers who might say that you shouldn't but they're not people who I refer clients to.

I'd resist being railroaded into any payout.

[Randall Clark]

Thanks for all of the input, I appreciate it.

[Ian Page]

Let me add a somewhat different spin. If the 'old' stain was visible and you either didn't see it or didn't question its source prior to opening up the faucets you may unwittingly be forced into acceptiing some liability. If the staining was clearly visible and there for all to see, a court could conclude some degree of negligence. However, in your defense, your actions didn't cause the existing damage or necessitate the repair as proven by the old staining existing prior to your inspection. Unless the old staining was from a different source (doubtful).

Either tell 'em to pound sand - see you in court - but insist the plumber puts his allegation in writing or throw them a goodwill bone (without any admission of liability).

[Raymond Wand]

Guess the owner thought you may bend over and pay out.

Failed under testing!

[Randall Clark]

Let me add a somewhat different spin. If the 'old' stain was visible and you either didn't see it or didn't question its source prior to opening up the faucets you may unwittingly be forced into acceptiing some liability. If the staining was clearly visible and there for all to see, a court could conclude some degree of negligence.

Good point but I inspected the 2nd floor first, so I was not privy to the stain on the first floor until after the leak.

The whole repair, replacing o-rings and painting the ceiling, will cost about $300, making this silly for the agent to even talk about.

[Jerry Peck]

Let me add a somewhat different spin. If the 'old' stain was visible and you either didn't see it or didn't question its source prior to opening up the faucets you may unwittingly be forced into acceptiing some liability. If the staining was clearly visible and there for all to see, a court could conclude some degree of negligence. However, in your defense, your actions didn't cause the existing damage or necessitate the repair as proven by the old staining existing prior to your inspection. Unless the old staining was from a different source (doubtful).

Either tell 'em to pound sand - see you in court - but insist the plumber puts his allegation in writing or throw them a goodwill bone (without any admission of liability).

On a twist of what Ian posted - in court ... the seller is asked if he let the inspector know that the tub was leaking and they answer 'no' - their liability for not letting the inspector know ... and if the seller answers 'yes' - their liability because they did not reveal it on the seller disclosure ... unless they did and no one looked at it and told the inspector.

Of course, though, if the seller did tell the inspector and the inspector tested it anyway, then it gets down to just what the seller told the inspector and to what extent 'what was leaking' was explained.

[Raymond Wand]

Randall wrote in part:
The whole repair, replacing o-rings and painting the ceiling, will cost about $300, making this silly for the agent to even talk about.


The onus is on the owner to prove negligence on your part. Secondly, painting the ceiling could be considered betterment, which is above and beyond the actual replacement of the o-ring. Regardless the owner is looking for you to pay for his own ignorance.

Do not past GO!

[Garry Sorrells]

...............

So, there is a larger old stain around the fresh wet spot on the ceiling, indicating prior leakage. Plumber came out and said, "the o-ring was blown out. Possibly from inspector turning on fixture too hard or running both hot and cold at the same time". There are two handles - hot and cold.
................
Question is, would you pay for all of the repair, some of the repair or tell them to stuff it?

An "O" ring is not a compression type seal like a seat seal on a valve stem. Maybe what the plumber said lost something in the translation. Or the excitement of thinking that someone else will be paying for the maintenance repairs that should have been done.

Tell them to stuff it. :becky:

[Ian Page]

Good point but I inspected the 2nd floor first, so I was not privy to the stain on the first floor until after the leak.

The whole repair, replacing o-rings and painting the ceiling, will cost about $300, making this silly for the agent to even talk about.

Randall
if you had seen the larger old water staining first, prior to your second floor inspection, would you not have questioned it? Either sought information from the seller / agent or referred to any disclosure available? Also, possibly suspecting that it had originated from the fixture above, would you still have operated the faucets? Playing a little 'devil's advocate' here...but it's that kind of thinking which a court might conclude to you having some / shared liability.

Not that what you did was not what the vast majority of Inspectors would have done under similar circumstances.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

The vendors responsibility, exposing patent issues in a declaration.
Sellers declaration; to which I did not receive today from the vendors agent; Has there been or do you know of any past water infiltration, Past flooding? Icicles? Etc...

IMO; The water stain should have been addressed, photographed, moisture testing, non-destructive (IR) or radiometric, prior to moving to the next level.

The inspectors due diligence, SOP.

I do not operate any kitchen appliances, Wall vacuums, or Jacuzzi's.

[Mitchell Meeks]

To me, some of these answers are hindsite is 20/20. Whether an inspector starts at the second floor or the first floor really should not matter. It should be what they feel is the best way to catch things. That being said, there is no guarantee that something like that would be caught.

To me, it was a defect. Plain and simple. But in the interest of protection and disclosure, maybe an inspector should ask if there is anything that should be noted like stains, etc before they get started. If they refuse or react differently, then there is even more proof of a coverup. Especially when something like a stain is visible.

- - - Updated - - -

To me, some of these answers are hindsite is 20/20. Whether an inspector starts at the second floor or the first floor really should not matter. It should be what they feel is the best way to catch things. That being said, there is no guarantee that something like that would be caught.

To me, it was a defect. Plain and simple. But in the interest of protection and disclosure, maybe an inspector should ask if there is anything that should be noted like stains, etc before they get started. If they refuse or react differently, then there is even more proof of a coverup. Especially when something like a stain is visible.

[Raymond Wand]

Ideally in my experience its always wise to walk around the exterior a couple of times and do a walk through the interior to familiarize yourself. Then start where you normally would such as the basement, main floor, second floor.

Its easy to become distracted. I always get to inspections at least 1/2 hour early, introduce myself, quiz the owner as to age of systems, roof, and any replacements. Then I circle the exterior without the clients and make notes, when they arrive I have them follow me around the exterior.

Moving inside I tell the clients I just want to walk through by myself, and then I start the process with them.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I concur Ray.
Good way to start the inspection.

[Jerry Peck]

I always wanted to look at the seller disclosure first ... andI aalways knew it was going to say the same thing: "unknown" or "none".

Either way, the inspector is off the hook because something like that (old stain) had to have been known but was not disclosed.

[Jack Feldmann]

The owner of the house is rarely home when I do the inspection. Same goes with the disclosure. Hardly ever see it.
An old stain, testing dry does not mean a fixture does not leak. It could only mean its been a long time since it was last used.
Being blamed for causing a leak by turning on faucets is just plain stupid.

[Mark Reinmiller]

As home inspectors we are there to operate and inspect everything. The owner is obligated to tell us what they know and what we should not do. If I did not inspect every bathroom that had a stain or patch below it I would not be inspecting a significant percentage of bathrooms. We should all use some judgement (like when the trap in a stall shower is dry or the shower is full of boxes).

I would rather deal with a bogus complaint from the owner than not do a good job for my client. If you inspect enough houses things like this will happen. Unless there is clear evidence that I was at fault, then I am not volunteering to pay for the owners problem.

[Ian Page]

I do much the same as Raymond
Arrive early. Familiarize myself with the outside, walking around and just taking general pics. Go inside, walk throughout up and down to get the room relationship to each other, again taking general pics. I have, of late been taking video, really for my own benefit. Speak to the owner about issues - if they are present. Look at any disclosures available and start from there, which sometimes depends on weather but usually on the outside and roof.

Buyers are rarely on site but if they are I ask them if they have any specific concerns for me to focus on and ask them to leave me to it. I also encourage them walk the house at the same time and bring anything to my attention they may have seen, after I've done my job. Sure I'm fallible, we all are but if they don't see an issue, I miss it and it's also not in disclosures then I did what I could to minimize liability.

[Jack Feldmann]

While I do arrive a little early for my inspections, I'm not sure I understand the whole "i get there an hour (or half hour) before the appointment" thing. My goal is to arrive before my clients gets there - IF they are going to the there.
In the last couple of years, clients hardly ever attend, and if they do, they arrive at the end of the inspection. Realtors hardly ever attend either. I have a Supra key, so I don't need them to open the house for me.
Maybe its because I have been inspecting since 1989, but I don't really need extra time to do my inspection. I don't really see the advantage of spending extra time. Can you not function or concentrate if someone else is there? Do you just need quiet time?
Maybe I have it wrong, or don't get the reasoning.

[Raymond Wand]

Different scenario up here, not that it relates to arriving early.
1. Realtors up here in Ontario attend every inspection its a policy decision.
2. Inspectors are not permitted in house unattended in my area. Too many problems over the years. No supra key either. Many years ago it was common for inspector to get lock box code, but too many vendors complained about people being in house unattended.
3. I request clients attend the inspection, very rarely are clients not eager to attend. If they are out of country or for other reasons unable to attend I up charge.
4. Arriving early does not affect the time needed to conduct the inspection. I take as long as I need to do a thorough inspection.I take as long as I need to get the job done.

As to arriving early, its not a case for me to need extra time. Clients are there at my side they see first hand, able to question what I am seeing. Hence I don't need to spend time at conclusion of inspection going through the report recapping everything.

Clients are happy as indicated by my questionnaire feedback.

Guess its a business decision more than anything.

[Ian Page]

While I do arrive a little early for my inspections, I'm not sure I understand the whole "i get there an hour (or half hour) before the appointment" thing. My goal is to arrive before my clients gets there - IF they are going to the there.
In the last couple of years, clients hardly ever attend, and if they do, they arrive at the end of the inspection. Realtors hardly ever attend either. I have a Supra key, so I don't need them to open the house for me.
Maybe its because I have been inspecting since 1989, but I don't really need extra time to do my inspection. I don't really see the advantage of spending extra time. Can you not function or concentrate if someone else is there? Do you just need quiet time?
Maybe I have it wrong, or don't get the reasoning.

Jack
For me arriving arriving early really depends on whether the home is occupied or not. If unoccupied then no need, my time is my own so to speak. If the home is occupied, an early arrival ensures the occupants are ready and that I will be entering their home at or about the pre-arranged time. I consider it a courtesy to them but also time to get my act together.

[Jack Feldmann]

Raymond,
At no point did I imply that I don't take whatever time it takes to do a thorough inspection.
I don't get the unattended thing. Obviously they know the home inspection is taking place, and who is doing it. If something comes up missing, its not too hard to deduce who might be at fault.

When we got licensed, it really opened up for inspectors to get Supra keys. It also allowed Realtors to not attend. There were complaints that realtors were sometimes trying to influence the inspectors, so for liability reasons, the brokers decided that their realtors should not attend. For sure a different mindset.

I have to say that most of my clients do not attend the inspection at all, or if they do, they show up the last half hour or so. Very few attend the entire time. Of course, I would prefer they were there, but honestly, I get very few questions after the inspection, so I have to assume that my report must be pretty descriptive, and easy to read and understand.

The same goes for home owners. Its very rare they are there, and stay for the inspection. I may run into them leaving when I show up, but very few stay. The ones that do stay, will often end up as clients. Almost 20% of my business comes from sellers of homes I inspect.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Raymond,
At no point did I imply that I don't take whatever time it takes to do a thorough inspection.
I don't get the unattended thing. Obviously they know the home inspection is taking place, and who is doing it. If something comes up missing, its not too hard to deduce who might be at fault.

a. When we got licensed, it really opened up for inspectors to get Supra keys.
b. It also allowed Realtors to not attend.
There were complaints that realtors were sometimes trying to influence the inspectors, so for liability reasons, the brokers decided that their realtors should not attend.

I have to say that most of my clients do not attend the inspection at all, or if they do, they show up the last half hour or so.
Very few attend the entire time. Of course, I would prefer they were there, but honestly, I get very few questions after the inspection, so I have to assume that my report must be pretty descriptive, and easy to read and understand.

The same goes for home owners. Its very rare they are there, and stay for the inspection. I may run into them leaving when I show up, but very few stay. The ones that do stay, will often end up as clients. Almost 20% of my business comes from sellers of homes I inspect.

Jack, Licensing or regulations.
Licensing; to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.
Regulations: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

Interesting how "licensing" pacified, rightfully or wrongly, the main two parties involved to be separated.
Might just be me but, I still see plenty of room for conflicted interests. It's off the playing field now, that's all, but I suspect lists of preferred homies are still passed around.

As for the client not attending, I can only say I wish them all the best.

[Raymond Wand]

Sometimes I wish my clients weren't in attendance too. Especially those who bring their brats along.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Randall in my opinion I would offer to only pay for part of the repair. It appears that the leak was untimely and likely to happen regardless of the party next to operate that faucet.

To me offering "some form of compensation" is simply good will. On the other hand when a home owner is not present, the inspector would have no idea of what could be an accident waiting to happen. Likewise the both the home owner and realtor could equally be "somewhat" negligent of indicating a warning about the condition.

Simply - my opinion, you can see by earlier postings your mileage can vary!

[John Kogel]

The repair to the plumbing fixture is for old damage the sellers neglected to fix.

The only repair an inspector might be responsible for would be damage that occurred during the inspection. No you do not owe anybody a new bathroom fixture. You found a leak, what you were paid to do.

In the past I have coughed up cash just to prevent negative feedback but as time goes by, you lose the will to please every xxxx involved in the transaction. Your clients deserve a faucet that doesn't leak, preferably a new one. It is ridiculous for agents to expect the inspector to supply that.

[Jack Feldmann]

Jack, Licensing or regulations.
Licensing; to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.
Regulations: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

Interesting how "licensing" pacified, rightfully or wrongly, the main two parties involved to be separated.
Might just be me but, I still see plenty of room for conflicted interests. It's off the playing field now, that's all, but I suspect lists of preferred homies are still passed around.

As for the client not attending, I can only say I wish them all the best.
Hi Robert,
With licensing there are regulations, that's for sure. We have a SOP we must follow, as well as a COE.
Of course the Realtors will refer their favorites, be it inspectors, mortgage companies, title companies, etc. Its just human nature.
There is room for conflicts of interest in just about every instance where people come together where money is involved.

I may be in an odd market, but a lot of my clients are moving to the Knoxville area from other parts of the Country (sometimes the World). Between the University of Tennessee, and The Oak Ridge National Lab, a lot of scientists and engineers move here. They will usually come to Knoxville, find a house, and have to go back home before the home inspection is scheduled. I get their concerns about the house before the inspection, and after the inspection, we will sometimes have a telephone or email exchange to answer their questions. But honestly, I really don't get that many follow up questions after they have read the report.
Ideally, if you write a good enough report, there should be any questions, or very few.

When the Realtors / clients do attend, they will usually show up a half hour before I'm finished.

I would say that less than 10% of my clients attend the entire inspection.

[Marc M]

pound sand..



Inspected a 20 year old home today. I was filling up the second floor master jacuzzi tub and it got about 1/3 of the way full when the seller/owner yelled there was water leaking on the first floor. The fixture was apparently bad and water leaked from under the tub through the laundry ceiling below. I helped the owner clean up the water and there is no visible damage to the ceiling other than a small wet spot.

So, there is a larger old stain around the fresh wet spot on the ceiling, indicating prior leakage. Plumber came out and said, "the o-ring was blown out. Possibly from inspector turning on fixture too hard or running both hot and cold at the same time". There are two handles - hot and cold.

The buyer's agent said the listing agent is asking me to turn in a claim on my E & O. Total cost of repair will be less than $300. I'm not filing a claim as my deduct is way more and this is silly.

Question is, would you pay for all of the repair, some of the repair or tell them to stuff it?

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Hi Robert,
With licensing there are regulations, that's for sure. We have a SOP we must follow, as well as a COE.
Of course the Realtors will refer their favorites, be it inspectors, mortgage companies, title companies, etc. Its just human nature.


Jack, I fully understand. As a matter of fact, the point of my post.
Not all business require workers to be licensed.


IMO, Business Regulations alone would set the bar high enough.
Registering your business under a government regulation that requires inspectors to register their business yearly, belong to a recognized home inspection association, not just an educator, show proof of insurance and certification.
Not all business require workers to be licensed.

Within that regulated government body, a third party oversight committee to defend home inspectors business interests. Homies require to be able to work unfettered by intimidation and harassment. Homies are subject to unprofessional misconduct by REA's as your state well knows. RE has unlimited deep pockets that lobby and defend their business interests and defend their workers.
Too bad.
So sad for real estate purchasers and sellers.
We all know this to be true.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Hi Robert,
With licensing there are regulations, that's for sure. We have a SOP we must follow, as well as a COE.
Of course the Realtors will refer their favorites, be it inspectors, mortgage companies, title companies, etc. Its just human nature.


Jack, I fully understand. As a matter of fact, the point of my post.
Not all business require workers to be licensed.
As to, "Realtors will refer their favorites."
This practice should be stopped dead in it's tracts.
REA's should not be able to refer home inspector or be held "liable and accountable" for their referrals. In other words, the REA writes off on the referral with the home inspector made aware of whom referred them in writing.
Everything recorder. keep on paper, and handed to the regulating government body over seeing home inspection businesses yearly.
To avoid favoritism, collusion and kickbacks...

IMO, Well managed Business Regulations alone would set the bar high enough.
An independent ombudsmen can administer "all complaints" for both sides of the table.

Registering your business under a government regulated body, that requires inspectors to register their business yearly, belong to a recognized home inspection association, not just an educator, show proof of insurance and certification, would be a good start to what I consider a growing cottage industry in Quebec.
Remember, not all business require workers to be licensed.

Within that regulated government body, a third party oversight committee would be able to defend home inspectors business interests. This is paramount for cunsumer protection.
Homies require to be able to work unfettered by intimidation, harassment and slander.
Homies are subject to unprofessional misconduct by REA's as many well know.
RE has deep pockets that lobby and defend their business interests and defend their workers.
Too bad.
So sad for real estate purchasers and sellers.
We all know this to be true.