Thread: Dishwasher overflowed...

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I've never read any case where a home inspector was sued for failure of an appliance(s). It does not mean it has not happened, only that a case of such has not been reported in legal proceedings.

Why this may be the case is the fact an appliance cost is not worth perusing to court due to the low costs involved.

That may be true, however the OP is more concerned with the aftermath. The kitchen was not tile, it was laminate flooring. The floor had already started to buckle when he shut the DW down. The DW is little cost compared to the flooring. Since the flooring could cost a lot of money, more could come of this.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

But the $ 64,000 question is; Drum roll please.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.xx..x.x.x.x

Does anyone know of a case that the homeowner took the Dishwasher tester to court for damages done during the inspection?

I would have to say it is negligible if any over the last 10 years based on the litigation work I do and the information I have seen regarding lawsuits against inspectors.

But it is possible, just like getting struck by lighting is!

I'm consulting(working for the bank) on a high end home being built and the appliances for the kitchen are costing a little over $33,000, just the stove is $12,000. Appliances on high end homes are expensive and getting more so every day. When folks move into a home they want those things to turn on and do their thing. Whether we like it or not, our clients are expecting us to check the appliances.

Originally Posted by Don Hester

Gary,

Gary,

I really wonder how much sueing is really going on. We all hear of it happening and I do know one inspector that got sued but I think that it really does not happen that much.

In fact it is of my opinion that there probably should be more suits done for some of the work I see from other inspectors out there.

I can only talk for my area, but about 50% or better of the home inspectors here do not even meet the minimum state standards and with our adoption of the 2012 IRC/2014 NEC I bet that number is even higher now since so many of them do not keep up on the laws and how it affects our reporting requirements per our state laws.

On the average I will consult on 6-8 cases(lawsuits) a year involving home inspectors, it has been in this range for about the past ten years. I turn down about 3 cases a year for various reasons. The vast majority of the case deal with the home inspector missing something or not reporting on something in the home. A small percentage involve injuries that are sustained by someone due to the problems with the home, sometimes it is the inspectors negligence for failing to report or report properly and sometimes it is not. When it becomes apparent that it is the inspectors fault this is when I advise my client (the attorney and insurance company) that they should consider settling out of court if at all possible.

Generally lawsuits are not going to happen for things under a few thousand dollars, simply due to the cost of going to court. Sure you have small claims and general sessions courts, but it is going to be very rare to see a home inspector in one of those unless they have just really ticked off someone.

Personally, I pay for good insurance to protect me if the need ever arises. If all you do is worry about being sued then you might do yourself a favor and go flip burgers or bag groceries.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I've never read any case where a home inspector was sued for failure of an appliance(s). It does not mean it has not happened, only that a case of such has not been reported in legal proceedings.

Why this may be the case is the fact an appliance cost is not worth perusing to court due to the low costs involved.

As to testing appliance simply by turning off and on one cycle is folly. For the same reasons one would not start and stop a car without a test drive in order to hear and feel the car which cannot be had by just idling a car. Apples to apples?

Raymond
Are you saying that only running the dw on one cycle is a waste of time or that the one cycle is meaningless? Surely, one cycle (I usually do just rinse or Quick wash) gives some information. I just test for supply and discharge leaks, then disclaim that not all cycles were tested. The same goes for other appliances where at least some information can be gleaned as to 'working' or not.

At least if you start a car and let it idle before buying you can tell something about its condition before you decide on a test drive. If it doesn't start or idles rough, then my guess is the test drive goes out the window.

Probably most states with licensing require that the HI carry a General Liability policy (some also E&O). The OP situation would/should fall under the General Liability claim for the repair of the floor.

But then I am still curious if anyone knows of a claim for damage to the property form damage resulting from Dishwasher overflow?

Thanks for the info Scott. Does sound like E&O cases. You may be correct that few sue in small claims due to the relatively small damage amounts involved and the hassle court entails.

Ian,

Yes I am saying that to run a appliance in only one simple cycle is pretty much useless. Sure it works in the one cycle, but does it truly work in the other 'critical' cycles? (i.e. does the self clean feature work in the oven? An important feature). A simple cycle will not determine that, so are you any further ahead? Simply fluff in order to appease the client in terms of simplistic testing is really not serving anyone least of all the customer.

Whereas a car you take it out for a test drive to see how it handles, check the radio, signals, wipers, mirrors, et ceteras.

Personally I think testing appliances via what some feel is an adequate test is folly and is short changing the customer because an inspector does not test all cycles, and how could he/she, they'd have to spend most of the day doing so.

In my experience, most people either do not convey appliances with the house, or the purchaser is planning on replacing them. Then you have the issue of if testing appliances, why not test every other appliance type such as intercoms, security cameras, smoke alarms, CO alarms, wireless lighting....

My business MO is to find the big issues which home buyers want to know about and again that in my world is not the appliances.

I also find it hard to believe that some of my fellow posters who are so caught up in technical aspects and correctness of inspecting believe that these simple test procedures are beneficial and think they are just a PR exercise.

Then there is the warranty service which could be provided for the protection of the client should such concerns be at the forefront of an inspectors service. Risk reduction without the need to test.

Cheers,

In my area appliances always convey. In some cases, even the refrigerator. I test dishwashers by using the normal cycle. I do check mid cycle to ensure the spray wand is turning, and do check for leaks during and after it has run. I also check to make sure the heating element comes on.
I only check the normal cycle. I've owned dishwashers for decades, and I only use the normal cycle. I'm sure others may use some of the other 43 cycles available, but I don't.

Its very easy to be critical of how someone else does something, be it testing appliances, writing reports, inspection methods, or how many photos and what type should be taken or included in a report. I find it curious how nasty some of the conversations get on some of these topics. Things are said that would likely not be said if we were standing face to face.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Then you have the issue of if testing appliances, why not test every other appliance type such as intercoms, security cameras, smoke alarms, CO alarms, wireless lighting....

If you stop 10 random people and ask them to list household appliances, not a single person would mention intercoms, cameras, alarms, etc. etc.