Leaking bathtub

[Rick Strand]

You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home. If in no other way, with a scathing review somewhere or a firestorm with my listing agent.

I understand that as a buyer, I would want the info provided by the use of a dam but as an inspector, can not justify the risk. This is an old argument and you will not convince me to start using one just as I will not convince you to stop

[Nick Ostrowski]

I can see where a home owner would have a problem with a testing method that turned up leaks and made their ceiling wet and stained when no signs of an issue or defect previously existed. While an argument can certainly be made that the testing method is valid and brings the problem to light, an argument can also be made that the testing method exceeded the normal conditions under which the shower would be used. Most people do not shower in two inches of water around their feet unless they let hair and soap scum build up inside the drain and never clean it. An inspector could probably make windows leak at every inspection if he took a garden hose and blasted the exterior window for 5 minutes straight and said the test replicates wind driven rain that can be experienced during a tropical storm.

If you're going to use testing methods that create issues/stains/damage where no visible damage previously existed, you'll need to be very convincing as to why you are not at fault or your E&O better be up to date. It is a very slippery slope and one I do not care to walk.

Whatever you're doing Marc, it is obviously working for you. More power to you. Around here in SE Pennsylvania, an IR camera and the training courses would be lot a money out the door. Buyers around here love the idea of extra services and tests until they find out they have to pay for them. I've gotten maybe 5 or so inquiries about IR scanning in 8+ years. It's just not in demand around here.

[Marc M]

I can explain to a client or used house sales person that a component failed during 'normal operation', I can not justify water running out of a first floor ceiling after 'testing'.

I would not allow an inspector into my home carrying a device with kill marks on it.

Well..if you add up the "kill marks" and and then multiply that by four, which the number of these that I have with "kill marks", and then attach a real dollar figure to it... I'd say I'm doing a great service to my clients, despite what the seller or agent(s) thinks. My client are my number one priority.

[Jerry Peck]

You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home.

You might try to hold me responsible, but once I personally ripped out the tile and showed you WHY the shower pan WAS leaking, YOU would be paying ME for my efforts, much to your chagrin.

Unless, of course, you had elected not to have me test it and my buyer walked, in which case it would up to the next inspector to address your stubbornness and, yes, lack of knowledge, about shower pan leaks.

[Rick Strand]

The problem with your invitation to a pissing match is that we will both get wet... No thanks.

[Marc M]

You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home. If in no other way, with a scathing review somewhere or a firestorm with my listing agent.

I understand that as a buyer, I would want the info provided by the use of a dam but as an inspector, can not justify the risk. This is an old argument and you will not convince me to start using one just as I will not convince you to stop

It's hard for me to understand why so many do not perform this test. My IR images and the marks on my stoppers posted here indicate that it happens pretty often. So because of SOP's you are willing to walk away from an issue you were paid to find? Not to knock SOP's but unless your state mandates that you not go above them, they're useless IMOP.
You are not forcing it to leak, just testing the integrity of the component.

[Nick Ostrowski]

It's hard for me to understand why so many do not perform this test. My IR images and the marks on my stoppers posted here indicate that it happens pretty often. So because of SOP's you are willing to walk away from an issue you were paid to find? Not to knock SOP's but unless your state mandates that you not go above them, they're useless IMOP.
You are not forcing it to leak, just testing the integrity of the component.

I can't speak for all but I believe it is because most inspectors don't want the potential headache of dealing with a pissed off homeowner. Some sellers take things personally and get mad at us for finding issues as it is.

[Garry Sorrells]

Marc,
Reluctant to interject a comment into the testing issue.
Testing to the maximum requirements as opposed to testing to the level of normal use is where many have the issue. Many feel that if something is working under normal use, that is what is expected. Being subjected to a situation that is far beyond how an item will be used exceeds normal expectations is not expected. Once an item is put in service, typically its expectations are reduced.

Something like a new car that can handle the engine being red lined and reaching 130 mph and held there as original testing criteria. Normal operation does not subject the engine to that stress and few expect that performance once placed into service. The normal expectations is based on normal use.

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head. So many feel that why test to a level that is not reflective of normal expectations. Many would think that soaking the shower walls would be a better test for leakage and ultimately more beneficial.

One might argue that the overload protection should be tested to verify that the breakers actually trip as designed. But I do not think anyone will be shorting out the electric as a test to verify the breaker operation.

The issue may revolve around at what point do you test to code test requirements or maximum design features.

[Jerry Peck]

The problem with your invitation to a pissing match is that we will both get wet... No thanks.

Not inviting you to a pissing match, you would probably win that one, just encouraging you get further education on how shower pans are constructed ... er ... on how shower pans SHOULD BE constructed, and the materials used for the shower pans.

[Jerry Peck]

Gary,

I am glad you worded you post the way you did as that allows me to refer to inspecting that way:

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head.

If you filled a tub up to the overflow to test the overflow (that should be how you are testing tubs), would you expect the tub to leak? If you filled the tub up to just below the over-flow rim of the tub, would you expect the tub to leak? Or to re-phrase it differently, you would expect the tub to *not leak*, correct?

That is because a tub is a formed water reservoir which is designed and intended to hold water and not leak. Agreed?

A shower is simply a free-form tub with a low over-flow rim (the threshold) and the shower pan is, like the tub, expected to *not leak* when filled to the top of the shower pan (and to not leak immediately if filled to the top of the threshold, it should over flow the threshold, yes, but not immediately leak under the tile on the top of the threshold - that should take time).

As such, the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim.

Now, if an inspector does not fill a tub with water, yeah, I guess I would also expect that same inspector to not test a shower pan either.

[Marc M]

Marc,
Reluctant to interject a comment into the testing issue.
Testing to the maximum requirements as opposed to testing to the level of normal use is where many have the issue. Many feel that if something is working under normal use, that is what is expected. Being subjected to a situation that is far beyond how an item will be used exceeds normal expectations is not expected. Once an item is put in service, typically its expectations are reduced.

Something like a new car that can handle the engine being red lined and reaching 130 mph and held there as original testing criteria. Normal operation does not subject the engine to that stress and few expect that performance once placed into service. The normal expectations is based on normal use.

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head. So many feel that why test to a level that is not reflective of normal expectations. Many would think that soaking the shower walls would be a better test for leakage and ultimately more beneficial.

One might argue that the overload protection should be tested to verify that the breakers actually trip as designed. But I do not think anyone will be shorting out the electric as a test to verify the breaker operation.

The issue may revolve around at what point do you test to code test requirements or maximum design features.

I get your point. However, the only way to test the corners of the pan is to fill it. I get the normal use argument etc...and can respect that point of view. But even with normal use, eventually the pan will leak. That's when the phone rings and you get the "you missed it," "would have never bought this house had I known...", "I could have used that in my negotiations if you just looked for it / found it..." etc.... conversations. Which is the reason that I have never got that call. In fact, never in all the hundreds of pans I've found has a seller ever called to complain. Just lucky I suppose..

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

[Marc M]

Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling.

[Garry Sorrells]

In general not looking for a fight only understanding to thought process and maybe a little devil advocate for discussion purposes. Others will be interested, I think.

Marc,
Jerry stated:
"...the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim. ..."

and Marc you stated:
"...I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling ..."

Now the question is what is the difference in testing the shower pan and the tub overflow? If either fails to perform correctly damage will occur. By filling the shower pan you are testing to determine if there has been a failure, so does it not follow that testing of the tub overflow would be called for to determine if there has been a failure?

Either pan liner or tub overflow will cause damage if the installation has failed. Under normal use the overflow will not be used, only under extreme conditions does it come into use. What is your criteria of discrimination for testing.

[Marc M]

In general not looking for a fight only understanding to thought process and maybe a little devil advocate for discussion purposes. Others will be interested, I think.

Marc,
Jerry stated:
"...the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim. ..."

and Marc you stated:
"...I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling ..."

Now the question is what is the difference in testing the shower pan and the tub overflow? If either fails to perform correctly damage will occur. By filling the shower pan you are testing to determine if there has been a failure, so does it not follow that testing of the tub overflow would be called for to determine if there has been a failure?

Either pan liner or tub overflow will cause damage if the installation has failed. Under normal use the overflow will not be used, only under extreme conditions does it come into use. What is your criteria of discrimination for testing.

I was actually only kidding with that response. But... I do test the overflow. I suppose I'm a little different when it comes to inspecting. I walk tile roofs, perform level II chim scans, test pans and tub overflows and a few others that are beyond the SOP's set forth by _________ (insert any association here). It's all about the client brother. And a little CYA thrown in for good measure...
You have to admit, however, there is nothing like water running from a can light or register to liven things up at your inspection.

[Jeffrey L. Mathis]

This has been a generally enjoyable thread. But I'm not filling a tub up to the over-flow. I'm telling my clients up front that I do not, that in my experience most all leak, and to assume so.
As for the shower-you can only do what time and tide allows. Fill the shower at arrival and evacuate and exit. If it's a second floor shower in a home that has any time on it, common sense must prevail. What you see is what you get. Explain your limitations. My report system has a space at the top of each component for me to set the parameters.


JLMathis

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

I covered the overflow with my hand and filled the tub as fill as I could get it without overflowing the tub (my hands never totally covered the overflow inlets no matter how hard I tried).

If the overflow was not properly seated, or the washer not installed/missing/damaged/etc., then it leaked.

[Marc M]

Uno mas...

[Ian Page]

In decades of making plumbing and leak repairs, I have rarely come across an incident where the homeowner has reported the tub overflow leaked while taking a bath. I've encountered leaks around the tub, from the supply lines, valves, walls and perimeter - all caused while using the tub under normal circumstances. On the odd occasion where leakage was exposed, an unattended child and filled the tub. I have encountered leaking overflows when the shower is operating and water runs into the overflow from above.

To that end I see little value in filling a tub to see if the overflow works or not but I do operate the shower and, if possible, spray water onto the overflow - then examine the area that is likely affected by the water intrusion. It's not perfect and I don't have an IR camera but I also figure that if the tub/shower is in normal use and has an active leak, some staining or other damage will likely be visible.

The same applies to built on-site, hot mopped, shower pans. I see little value in filling them to a point of near overflow. If it has an active leak under normal use then I anticipate any leak would be exposed visually -sop for the majority of inspectors. Formed fiberglass pans rarely leak, but if they do the crack or damage in the fiberglass is usually pretty visible, which would be called out (as a leak potential) in any event.

[Marc M]

If it has an active leak under normal use then I anticipate any leak would be exposed visually

Almost NONE of the pans that I find leaking have any sign or indication that they leak.
This last one leaked in less than 5 minutes. Normal use, non normal use...the thing was destined to leak and it had my name all over it. "Ring Ring... hello, Mr. inspector..you missed my shower pan leak and now it's damaged my $20,000 floor". Never had one of those calls but I'm sure it goes something like that.

[Ian Page]

Marc
I'm not doubting the value of an IR camera - just the value of filling tubs and shower pans to capacity - in the normal course of an inspection. And, to that regard, being potentially held responsible for resulting damage.

[Jerry Peck]

To that end I see little value in filling a tub to see if the overflow works or not ...

I found many, many, many tubs leaking at the overflows, and had I not tested the tubs to that level ... *I* ... may have been the one getting the call Marc does not want to get, that no home inspector wants to get - Mr. Inspector, my tub leaked and the ceiling below it fell onto the dining room table and broke all of my priceless heirloom china ...

I don't understand why some home inspectors chose not to test the tubs to the overflow (many leak at the overflow), undermount sinks to the countertop (many leak at the undermount seal), metal sinks to the overflow (many leak at the metal overflow), etc.

[Ian Page]

Jerry
Because of the potential, real or percieved, liabilities. Bearing in mind, at a typical home inspection we are at the sellers home - who is not paying for our services - and any damage which could be avoided by adopting alternative, albeit less than perfect, makes more sense, a personal decision and IMO a better business decision...but to each his/her own.

There may be an issue regarding E and O insurance, and whether the insurance company would pay out if a satisfactory test could have been performed in a less intrusive manner. Any Home Owners Ins. would likely defer costs/damages to the HIs insurance co.

[Jerry Peck]

any damage which could be avoided by adopting alternative, albeit less than perfect, makes more sense,

Any alternative which does not produce the same results (exposing a leak) is not a suitable alternative in my mind, and if the alternative does produce the same results (it leaks) - then the same damage, if any, will happen.

The advantage of the infrared camera is that you can check it before, check it during, and then possibly be able to stop before the damage is visible or amounts to much, besides, the damage was not caused by you, the damage would be caused by the improperly sealed overflow (most of the time the gasket is not even installed - the plumber goes to install the gasket and overflow to the tub, the gasket falls to the floor behind the tub, and the plumber simply assembles the overflow anyway, even though they could have reached around the tub and put the gasket back in place - why? - because 'no one will ever know').

[/quote]There may be an issue regarding E and O insurance, and whether the insurance company would pay out if a satisfactory test could have been performed in a less intrusive manner. Any Home Owners Ins. would likely defer costs/damages to the HIs insurance co.[/QUOTE]

Most contracts include an item where the buyer agrees to pay for any damage caused by the inspection ... and for the savvy buyer that leads back to 'the inspection and test did not cause' the damage, 'the defect which the inspection found caused' the damage.

Any way, I never had a problem with finding defects through finding water running down through ceilings, light fixtures, across floors, etc., my buyers never had a problem with that method either.

[Jeffrey L. Mathis]

Hey Ian:

I'm sticking with my way.
I tell the client up front that I'm not going to do it.
When my brother died, I was selling his townhouse. An inspector filled past the over-flow. It leaked. A thousand dollars later, it was fixed.
The facts are that a substantial amount will leak.
Just tell your client that. We don't need to hurt sellers just because we can. And no one needs to fill a tub up that far anyway.
I've learned more from reading Mr. Peck's posts than most classes I've taken. But I can't go there this time.

JLMathis

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

HEYALL

call your insurance company and ask them if you are covered if you fill the tub to the overflow and you cause a leak--or the shower pan. let us know what they say--i know what mine said

cvf

[Nick Ostrowski]

Charlie, who is your carrier and what was their response? I assume based on the way you say it means they said you would not be covered. If that is the case, did they explain why you would not be covered for any damage incurred by this testing method?

I have no plans to perform this type of test. I'm just curious as to what an insurance provider has to say about it.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

nick

they said it is not in my sop. and that is what they cover me for. i had to submit my agreement and assoc sop to them. i know sometimes we go above the sop to help-but i'm not going to do something that can cause damage-- trying to cause an issue is not something i will do.

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

HEYALL

call your insurance company and ask them if you are covered if you fill the tub to the overflow and you cause a leak--or the shower pan. let us know what they say--i know what mine said

cvf

Charlie, who is your carrier and what was their response? I assume based on the way you say it means they said you would not be covered. If that is the case, did they explain why you would not be covered for any damage incurred by this testing method?

I have no plans to perform this type of test. I'm just curious as to what an insurance provider has to say about it.

Why are you concerned what you insurance says about testing showers and bathtubs? You don't file a claim with them, you didn't *cause* the leak - the leak was already there.

If you operate a furnace and the house burns down, does your insurance cover it? Call them, they will probably say no.

What you guys seem to be missing (at least to me) is that you ask the seller or sellers agent if there are any leaks (they say no), then you tell them you are going to be testing such and such (they say no problem, no leaks), now, if there is a leak - you were given bad and incorrect information, possibly even fraudulent (if there was intent) ... either way ... the damage from the leak *you discovered* - *not caused* - is not your responsibility, nor that of your insurance company.

I lived in a very litigious state with almost as many lawyers as California has, maybe more, and I - and most other home inspectors - tested those things ALL THE TIME ... not sure what the perceived problem is. I did it for almost 20 years - other home inspectors down there (South Florida) are still doing it.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

jp

sorry i don't ask the seller or their agent squat--they are not my client--plus don't want to hear MY HOUSE IS IN GREAT SHAPE--that is not my responsibilty--it is suppose to be in the disclosure paper work TO THE CLIENT--that almost always states DO NOT KNOW.I HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING AT THAT PAPER.

will sometimes after inspection. but i know driving sop or laws says don't drink and drive--don't drive on the wrong side of the street--don't run stop signs etc. if i did i'd have trouble,with my insurance and the judge--just saying--be careful out there--**** flows down hill. and do i trust my insurance coveage--hell no.but have never had to use them and thats the way i want to keep it---and i don't do my client any injustice--i am thorough, i think i am and have had no complaints. again i say call your insurance company

cvf.

[Ken Rowe]

Actually, my insurance carrier said the same thing. Yes, it was fully explained to them. They noted it was not testing using "normal operating conditions". I have to agree. Blocking the drain to fill the shower pan with standing water is not normal operating conditions.

[Ian Page]

Like all HIs I test stuff that should work under normal operating conditions. Like all HIs I find stuff that doesnt work, under normal operation conditions, Like many HIs, I have been 'blamed' for causing a malfunction if the stuff failed to perform the way it should, with the claim that, "... it was working perfectly fine before the inspector messed with it." Granted, with a little explanation to the owner/seller the allegations/claims are usually withdrawn and there is no or little cost to the HI, save goodwill, a possible new customer and pissed off realtor(s).

However...it's awfully hard to placate a seller who now has potentially several hundred, perhaps thousands of dollars worth of repairs, to a ceiling/furniture/flooring while their house is for sale, just to prove a point. Just guess who they are going to turn to for compensation?...It sure as hell won't be the buyer who has just walked because an expensive leak was discovered. Even though that leak may have been there prior to testing - just not visible. The buyer/customer may be very grateful for saving them money and aggravation. The homeowner may make a claim against their own home owner's insurance policy but as soon as the causation is determined, guess who is going to bite the wiener? I suppose in defense you could say, "Jerry said it was okay..." Their, response, "...Oh, okay then, if Jerry said..."

The lack of an extensive, non-normal operating condition test, may be a dis-service to the buyer/customer and could lead to a subsequent claim. But if the reason for not conducting such a test and the possible repurcussions are explained beforehand, any claim is mitigated.

For me it's the real possibility of uncontrolled collateral damage which is the dermining factor but, as I said before...to each his/her own.

[Jerry Peck]

Like all HIs I test stuff that should work under normal operating conditions.

MOST HIs test things as they were designed and intended to work, which is, after all, what you are saying that they are doing ... working as designed and intended - and which is above and beyond 'normal operating conditions'.

Do you set the thermostats all the way up for heat?

That is not a 'normal operating condition', very few, if any, home owners will turn the thermostat all the up for heat ... that is above and beyond 'normal operating conditions'.

You can think of MANY examples which exceed 'normal operating conditions'.

Saying you test under 'normal operating conditions' is like saying you are doing a 'visual home inspection' when you are not.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

jp

i set the thermostat to fire the furnace--maybe three degrees higher then wher it is set

and i don't agree with what you just wrote--i don't do a visual inspection--i inspect to find issues--not cause any.

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

sorry i don't ask the seller or their agent squat

You don't ask the seller or their agent if it is okay to operate EVERYTHING?

And that if there is something they are aware of that 'should not be operated FOR ANY REASON' now is the time to speak up?

Maybe THAT is how and why all the inspectors down here (and other places) can test things better without having to worry about any gripping from the sellers when something goes wrong ... 'the sellers (or their agent) stated that it all work and to go ahead and test everything'.

--they are not my client--plus don't want to hear MY HOUSE IS IN GREAT SHAPE--that is not my responsibilty--it is suppose to be in the disclosure paper work TO THE CLIENT--that almost always states DO NOT KNOW.I HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING AT THAT PAPER.

And that paper will do diddly squat when the seller calls you about something which is no longer working or which they claim you broke.

ASK THEIR PERMISSION to test *everything*, when something goes wrong ... THEY GAVE their permission for you to test *everything*.

I always thought the above was included with Home Inspection 101, Day 1, Hour 1.

Gosh, now maybe I know why we as home inspectors in Florida, and especially in South Florida, can test so much more ... *we asked permission* ... the seller said *sure, EVERYTHING WORKS fine* ... little do the sellers know what they are doing when giving that permission.

[Jerry Peck]

i inspect to find issues--not cause any.

That is all that we do too when inspecting to find out if the system/item/component is 'working as intended'.

Marc in California apparently has no problems testing for 'working as intended'.

When you test the heat or air conditioning, to what standard are you referring to when you say that something does or does not 'work'?

[Nick Ostrowski]

Using the approach to inspect everything to see if it will perform as intended, we could......

- run a hose full blast against exterior windows and roof flashings for a few minutes to replicate rain from a wind driven tropical storm and see if they leak
- overload circuits to see if the breakers will trip
- fill washing machine, water heater, and AC air handler overflow pans with water to make sure they drain out and determine where they drain too
- fill perimeter troughs in the basement (finished or not) with water to make sure the water makes it to the sump pit

I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out. If you want to do all these things, have at it.

[Ian Page]

I can't say that I have never asked the seller if there are specific issues I should be aware of, but if I have, it's rare. 95% of the time I never meet the sellers so have no opportunity to ask. I do ask to review any disclosure forms. However, if I told the seller I was going to fill the tub/shower pan to 'force' the exposure of a pre-existing leak, which may result in untold damage that they will be responsible for, when no prior damage or visual problems have been noted, I fully expect their response to would be..."Not this house, not in my lifetime..." or something similar but less polite. Who could blame them?

[Jerry Peck]

- run a hose full blast against exterior windows and roof flashings for a few minutes to replicate rain from a wind driven tropical storm and see if they leak

I realize the above is in jest, but ... ... there WAS an inspector in South Florida who did that (and other things) and he charged MORE THAN I DID and his market was my market AND HIGHER (yep, I never quite was able to break into his market of of 30,000-40,000 square foot homes, my large one were in the 20,000-25,000 square foot range).

That just proves THERE IS A MARKET for home inspector like that.

[Ted Menelly]

I have never asked a seller anything about operating anything unless it was a new item that I was not familiar with and that does happen on a rare occasion. I absolutely never ask an agent anything about operating anything ever.

I already have permission to come into their home for a home inspection. If they have doubts that should have inquired to their realtor long before I got there.

You book an inspection for a potential buyer. You already have permission to test connected items in the home weather it be operating a window or HVAC system or swimming pool or anything coming along with the home. Not quite sure with the non understanding about already being given permission.

[Nick Ostrowski]

No jest intended Jerry. It's testing to see if the windows will perform as intended under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility. Apparently from what you say, there is another inspector who did this very thing. It's not my thing.

An inspector can explain these tests any way he likes and he can justify the reason for them any way he likes too. Convincing the sellers and his insurance carrier of the same is another matter. And as Ken and Charlie have already stated, their carriers will not cover any damages incurred by the intentional flooding of a shower pan. You don't have to agree with it or like it but if your carrier will not cover you for for damages incurred, you proceed at your own risk. Based on that alone, most inspectors will not incorporate this type of testing into their inspections.

[Jerry Peck]

No jest intended Jerry. It's testing to see if the windows will perform as intended under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

Actually, that hose test means, and proves, dis-proves, absolutely nothing.

Only a real ASTM test means or proves anything. And when you get into the ASTM you realize it does not test the window anywhere near design loading, and that what 99% of the people seeing a 'leak' would call a 'leak', while that other 1% who know the ASTM test will say that the window did not leak, even with water inside on the ledge of the window.

Apparently from what you say, there is another inspector who did this very thing.

Yep, and even though we argued and explained that his hose test was meaningless, he kept doing them, and that kept him 'on top' of the 3-4 of us in South Florida who were 'at top' of the market.

His clients like the fact that he did those hose tests, because, like you, they thought that test would show if the windows would leak "under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility".

An inspector can explain these tests any way he likes and he can justify the reason for them any way he likes too.

I agree there.

Convincing the sellers and his insurance carrier of the same is another matter.

Not sure why you guys keep going back to your "insurance" ... your insurance *has absolutely NOTHING* to do with testing showers, tubs, or even windows - well, okay, maybe testing windows like that because, while testing tubs and showers is actually testing to see if they work as intended, a hose test on a window tests absolutely nothing, especially nothing related to how a window is intended to work.

And as Ken and Charlie have already stated, their carriers will not cover any damages incurred by the intentional flooding of a shower pan.

There you are going back to that "insurance" thingy again - insurance has NOTHING to do with it.

Besides, you are not doing anything like "the intentional flooding of a shower pan" as that implies that you are "flooding" the shower pan until it overflows, and, OF COURSE it will overflow water that way. However, that has no semblence to a proper shower pan test in which the shower pan is filled to about 1/2" or so below the threshold (below the tile, below the thin set, and below the Durock - if that was used on top of the shower pan at the top of the curb/threshold) ... the entire intent is to NOT "flood" the pan, but to verify that the pan will hold water to the level that the shower pan is intended to hold water.

Not sure why you and some others - thankfully, not all others - are having a hard time understanding this aspect of testing shower pans.

You don't have to agree with it or like it but if your carrier will not cover you for for damages incurred, you proceed at your own risk. Based on that alone, most inspectors will not incorporate this type of testing into their inspections.

Again, back to that "insurance" thing - there is NOTHING for your "insurance" to cover - the seller covers it ... that pan IS SUPPOSED TO NOT LEAK ... it really is that simple. Any damage resulting from a pan leak is the contractor's fault who installed the pan, not the inspector's fault for finding the leak.

I fail to grasp why the above is so hard to grasp - the inspector DID NOT CAUSE anything, not the leak, not any damage, nada.

I can see that this is a bit of wasted time being as you have not grasped it at this point, and that some other inspectors have not grasped it either - and I am glad that other inspectors can and do understand the difference. Oh, well, to each their own.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

jp

95% of the time here in colorado the seller and their agent is not present at home inspection--they are told to be missing --don't see don't talk to.. i like it that way---so i can do my job. what do you call them up and talk about their house prior to inspection. don't get it

cvf

[Nick Ostrowski]

There is nothing for insurance to cover ONLY if you can convince the seller the new stain and water damage created during your testing is the result of a faulty installation or damage despite the fact there was no damage or stains before you got there. True, the pan should not leak. But if it never showed any signs of leakage before you got there, and then after you inspect stains exist, the finger points at you for better or worse Maybe you and Marc are very convincing in explaining that the damages incurred by your testing methods are not your faults. I suspect that is likely not the case for most of us which would leave us wide open to headache complaints and being sued. Therefore, insurance coverage does have something to do with whether or not to test shower pans. Sellers sometimes get pissed off enough at our findings in their house even though we did nothing to create the defects. But, couple that with creating stains on their ceiling from your testing methods and you have a recipe ripe for a lawsuit. If an HI wants to take that chance, it's his choice.

It's not a matter of grasping anything Jerry. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine. I hear what your saying and explaining. I just don't agree with you. See how I was able to express my stance without any passive aggressive insults? You should try it.

[Ted Menelly]

I actually just had this exact conversation with an agent the other day. He wouldn't allow the test because they (sellers) use the shower every day...

The realtor would not allow the test

And the realtor had the command decision, why?
.
You were the one given permission to inspect the home, not the realtor.

[Jerry Peck]

jp

95% of the time here in colorado the seller and their agent is not present at home inspection--they are told to be missing --don't see don't talk to.. i like it that way---so i can do my job. what do you call them up and talk about their house prior to inspection. don't get it

cvf

Charlie,

I always preferred the seller not to be there, and (typically) no agent would stick around while I did my inspection (I was there too long for them to stick around and lose business), but we made it a point to tell someone, usually it would be the seller's agent, that I would be inspecting *everything* and that if there was any leaks or things not working right then they (representing the seller) should let us know right then. Usually, the agent would call the seller to clear it with them, sometimes I would get that 'you are not going to test blah-blah-blah' I mentioned in other threads, I would explain that blah-blah-blah must not be working, otherwise we would be able to test it, and if it was not working then that would be the first item written up in the report as needing to be corrected/repaired/etc., it did not take long to convince them that - if nothing was leaking or not working - let us test it (i.e., give us permission to test it).

*IF* it leaked and caused damage ... it was not my fault ... THEY said it did not leak and that I could test it ... thus the damage was a result of a faulty blah-blah-blah. All *I* did was 'test it'.

That worked for us in South Florida and was used by many across Florida - I can't say all home inspectors in Florida as I did not know them all, and there were a few in South Florida who did not test that way either, but the rest of us knew which inspectors they were - those other inspectors were real estate agent huggers. They couldn't find anything wrong with anything even if they fell through the bottom of the tub, there would be some positive remark in the report about why that was a good thing.

[Jerry Peck]

There is nothing for insurance to cover ONLY if you can convince the seller the new stain and water damage created during your testing is the result of a faulty installation or damage despite the fact there was no damage or stains before you got there. True, the pan should not leak.

By jove! I do believe you've got it!

(Is that positive enough for you?)

[Ken Rowe]

Jerry,

I've asked this before and I'll do it again now. Please provide some sort of professional standards (ASTM or whatever) which describes shower pan testing in a finished home. I'm fairly certain none exists. The shower pan test being described here should be done prior to the tile work, not after the bathroom and the rest of the home is finished.

[Ian Page]

Quote: "Besides, you are not doing anything like "the intentional flooding of a shower pan" as that implies that you are "flooding" the shower pan until it overflows, and, OF COURSE it will overflow water that way. However, that has no semblence to a proper shower pan test in which the shower pan is filled to about 1/2" or so below the threshold (below the tile, below the thin set, and below the Durock - if that was used on top of the shower pan at the top of the curb/threshold) ... the entire intent is to NOT "flood" the pan, but to verify that the pan will hold water to the level that the shower pan is intended to hold water."

Jerry - I think you just shot yourself in the foot with the above statement...
Few - if any 'shower pans' are intended to hold water. If they were they'd come equipped with a drain stopper (and probably not considered a shower pan). They are generally not designed or specifically intended to hold water. The water test, during construction is a verification of the pan not leaking over time, because it is impractical and usually not plumbed to have a shower running at the framing stage. Filling the pan during construction is the only practical method. The pan's ability to hold water is more of a positive by-product than the intended purpose.

I accept that pans do fill - or slow drain, either by intention or blockage but any resulting damage from a pan leak is an unintended consequence caused by an associated factor beyond design or function. A leaking shower pan during normal operation is obviously reportable. I have no problem with running a shower for a moderately excessive duration because other issues may be exposed - but that's the intended purpose of the shower - not to go skinny dipping in four inches of water.

[Ted Menelly]

Absolutely rediculous comments and questions.

A shower pan is not designed to hold water?????


Show me some specs stating this is how a shower pan is tested.

Stop. Please stop.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

I've asked this before and I'll do it again now. Please provide some sort of professional standards (ASTM or whatever) which describes shower pan testing in a finished home. I'm fairly certain none exists. The shower pan test being described here should be done prior to the tile work, not after the bathroom and the rest of the home is finished.

Ken,

You have asked before, and this has been posted before.

And not only posted by myself but by others as well.

READ the attached pdf file.

The shower pan test is intended to be done 'at the time of installation' ... AND ... at any time afterward when someone either suspects a leak or is verifying that there is no leak - THE TEST IS THE SAME.

Bottom of second page, item 8. Read the second to last line: "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE."

*IF* that was done ... there WILL NOT BE ANY LEAKS ... and if that was NOT done ... then THAT is what the shower pan test is trying to determine.

If *YOU* don't want to test the shower pan, it is quite simple ... DON'T TEST IT ... but don't blame not testing it on "insurance" - what a lame excuse - "insurance" as nothing to do with it ... either the shower pan leaks - or it does not. It really IS that plain and simple.

[Ken Rowe]

Ken,

You have asked before, and this has been posted before.

And not only posted by myself but by others as well.

READ the attached pdf file.

The shower pan test is intended to be done 'at the time of installation' ... AND ... at any time afterward when someone either suspects a leak or is verifying that there is no leak - THE TEST IS THE SAME.

Bottom of second page, item 8. Read the second to last line: "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE."

If you have other documentation stating that shower pan testing should be done by flooding the pan after the installation is complete, please post it.

*IF* that was done ... there WILL NOT BE ANY LEAKS ... and if that was NOT done ... then THAT is what the shower pan test is trying to determine.

If *YOU* don't want to test the shower pan, it is quite simple ... DON'T TEST IT ... but don't blame not testing it on "insurance" - what a lame excuse - "insurance" as nothing to do with it ... either the shower pan leaks - or it does not. It really IS that plain and simple.

Thanks for posting this Jerry and helping me prove my point. As you pointed out in step 8 of the installation testing of the shower pan is performed. There are 11 steps in the installation. The shower pan is to be tested prior the mortar and tile installed. No where does it say the shower pan should be tested after the installation is complete. "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE" does not mean if it leaks, finish the installation then test it again. It means if it leaks at step 8, fix it before completing the installation.

[Darrel Hood]

I seldom have any contact at all with the sellers or the listing agents. Most of the time, I don't even know the seller's name, and it doesn't matter. I coordinate with the buyer or the buyer's agent. It is their role to assure the inspection is permitted, including all that makes up an inspection. Do any of the Texas inspectors in this group routinely have contact with the sellers?

[Marc M]

I'm sort of confused. Inst the bathtub overflow installed to facilitate the runoff in the event you forget to turn off the water while filling the tub? So in light of this, it is installed for a specific purpose and intended to perform as expected, when expected. So IMOP is should be tested under those conditions. We all likely test components every day that treads the line or goes beyond our scope..even if just a little. I bet you SOP says you cant walk across joists in the attic due to insulation or whatever. I do every day. But then I do not inspect by any SOPs. IMOP, they just limit your ability to perform your job. My two pennys.

[Jerry Peck]

No where does it say the shower pan should be tested after the installation is complete. "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE" does not mean if it leaks, finish the installation then test it again. It means if it leaks at step 8, fix it before completing the installation.

"No where does it say the shower pan should" ... NOT ... "be tested after the installation is complete."

I'm glad you pointed out that it DOES NOT say that it should not be tested after the installation is complete. Thank you.

It says "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE", and if you suspect a leak, or are trying to verify that it does not leak, and YOU NOW KNOW that it required to be "LEAK FREE", then that test IS THE TEST to be used to determine if it is still leak free.

[Ken Rowe]

"No where does it say the shower pan should" ... NOT ... "be tested after the installation is complete."

Jerry, I asked you to provide documentation of an approved testing procedure for shower pans after the installation is completed. You did not provide this. You provided a testing procedure during installation. Not the same at all.

I'm glad you pointed out that it DOES NOT say that it should not be tested after the installation is complete. Thank you.

Common sense Jerry, which apparently you lack. The testing procedure you posted does not say to test it after the installation is completed. Testing should be done during the installation, step 8 of 13 or 14 steps of the installation process. If the manufacturer wanted the pan tested after the installation was complete it would be listed as the last step. It's sad that I have to point this out to you.

It says "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE", and if you suspect a leak, or are trying to verify that it does not leak, and YOU NOW KNOW that it required to be "LEAK FREE", then that test IS THE TEST to be used to determine if it is still leak free.

Right, it is required to be leak free prior to finishing the installation. Now post what I asked for, an approved, non invasive test for shower pans after the installation is complete. Good luck because there isn't one.

Come on "codeman" prove me wrong. Show me a manufacturer, ASTM or any organization who advises to flood the shower pan after the shower is completely finished. Heck, I'd even take the documentation of the shower stopper manufacturer that states it is designed to test the shower pan after (not during) the shower installation.

[Ian Page]

Marc
You are correct - bathtub overflow is intended to drain water in the event of over filling the tub and should not leak. However, the odds of the overflow being properly installed, or that the seal has not deteriorated over time are, at best, 50/50. Consequently I include a disclaimer in my report stating such, including that a test of filling the tub overflow level to determine the voracity of the overflow was not performed as damage may result if leaking occurs. I also include (if appropriate) - no evidence of leaking was observed at this time. I have never had a problem with the disclaimer.

Bear in mind also that any tub filling to overflow level is a pretty rare occurrence and I think buyers/homeowners understand that. I know the sellers certainly appreciate the consideration.

[Garry Sorrells]

-I have enjoyed the discussion. Especially since it has stayed fairly civil.

Many times the cost of inspecting or testing an item exceeds the cost of its replacement.
Other times the replacement cost is only a small amount more than the inspection or test.

In the case of the tub over flow system it is just far less costly to replace the gasket rather than bother to test it. It is the world of preventative maintenance. I agree that testing will prove something, but just replacing is a far easier approach. By the time you filled the tub you could have replaced the gasket and reset it correctly. I know, you are not there to make repairs. It just becomes part of the list of things to do or have done when buyer takes possession.

Shower walls, pan and drain assemblies are something else.
If a shower utilizes a no caulk drain gasket it should be dissembled and reset as a preventative measure.
If the shower has a lead pan it is either leaking or will leak, typically at the drain site.
Showers with newer flexible (PVC) liners, like all thing, vary with quality of the installation.
Ridged pans are about material quality, installation and drain line connections.
The Sun will rise and pans will fail.
I think all will agree that shower pans will leak at some time.
Even done correctly it ultimately will be about what part of the installation fails first.

Ken, though Jerry was off on the Oatey installation instruction as a requirement for future testing. It is a generally construction industry standard, that if there is a question if the pan has failed from initial construction, to flood the pan. There may be a issue as to depth of water. 1 inch to height of the curb/threshold. It is by common agreement not to go above the curb/threshold, :-). This flooding test (been around for years) (used by the trades) is typically to verify if the visual damage is a result of the pan and not from some other cause. Most often without the use of a IR camera. The unknown issue is how the pan was built. Even in wheel chair accessible showers the shower walls will have the liner 3-4 inches or higher as a common practice.

In defense of Jerry and others I do not think that there is a formal statute as a definition of normal use. It is mostly by accepted convention what normal use or operation is, unless manufacture describes in specifications. If it goes to a Judge it is what ever they accept or determine. An insurance company will call it the way they see it or want to see it. Jerry and others look at the pan as a system to be tested to its maximum limits or integrity of function. With the view that the pan should function as first installed.

Others look at the pan in a limited fashion in that use under less than maximum design limits can be acceptable. Running water in the shower and splashing around with the water draining out with no signs of leakage.

Doesn't it really boil down to what the client wants? What clients level of expectation? Inspecting/testing to an agreed level is where the contract for services comes in to play. If a testing procedure is not allowed by the property owner, which is within their rights, that is just stated to the client. Explanation of possible problems resulting from non testing is a discretion of the tester or an explanation of what testing was done and with what results. It's all about communication.

Not explaining the test to the client or owner prior to and as part of the report may be looked as being disingenuous. After generating a leak from a test and then saying " I ran water in the shower and it showed a leak " which is something of a half truth when the shower was filled with 3" of water and held for 3 hrs as the test method. As opposed to " after blocking the drain and raising the water level 3 inches in the shower for 3 hrs to test the pan integrity, water was observed coming from the ceiling below shower". "The shower pan leaks".

I would say "go for the gusto" and test to the maximum possible, but inform the owner exactly what you are going to do. Be up front unlike some other comments made in other forums.

[Ken Rowe]

Ken, though Jerry was off on the Oatey installation instruction as a requirement for future testing. It is a generally construction industry standard, that if there is a question if the pan has failed from initial construction, to flood the pan. There may be a issue as to depth of water. 1 inch to height of the curb/threshold. It is by common agreement not to go above the curb/threshold, :-). This flooding test (been around for years) (used by the trades) is typically to verify if the visual damage is a result of the pan and not from some other cause. Most often without the use of a IR camera. The unknown issue is how the pan was built. Even in wheel chair accessible showers the shower walls will have the liner 3-4 inches or higher as a common practice.

Garry, IPC requires a minimum water depth of 2 inches during the test. If the curb isn't high enough a temporary one needs to be built. Chapter 3 - General Regulations

In defense of Jerry and others I do not think that there is a formal statute as a definition of normal use. It is mostly by accepted convention what normal use or operation is, unless manufacture describes in specifications. If it goes to a Judge it is what ever they accept or determine. An insurance company will call it the way they see it or want to see it. Jerry and others look at the pan as a system to be tested to its maximum limits or integrity of function. With the view that the pan should function as first installed.

I wasn't looking for a "formal statute as a definition of normal use". I was looking for documentation of an approved testing method after the installation is complete. Jerry claims they exist, but has not provided one yet.

I would say "go for the gusto" and test to the maximum possible, but inform the owner exactly what you are going to do. Be up front unlike some other comments made in other forums.

"test to the maximum possible"?? Does that mean we should get in the shower and jump up and down to see if it will hold up? Should we toss something at the bathroom mirror to see if it's safety glass? Or should we maybe use some common sense and other inspection methods?

Maybe pull a nearby heat register out and slide bore scope between the duct and floor sheeting to look under the shower. Maybe look at the adjacent walls of the shower, and use a moisture meter at the base of those walls. How about using an uv light on the ceiling below the shower to look for covered stains. There are many ways to determine if there's an existing problem without creating a bigger problem. Heck, I'd rather get permission to drill a 3/8 inch hole in the ceiling below the shower to get the bore scope in it than risk damaging the house.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, I asked you to provide documentation of an approved testing procedure for shower pans after the installation is completed. You did not provide this. You provided a testing procedure during installation.

Ken ... I DID provide you documentation on how to test a shower pan - that test is applicable WHENEVER a shower pan is to be tested.

Ken, you sound like that person who asks for a hot dog with ketchup, mustard, and onions, then, when given what they asked for, says that they don't like ketchup, the mustard is not the right mustard, and they are allergic to onions, and, by the way, the hot dog doesn't taste any good either. People like that (like you) can never be pleased - go back and review your posts, you will see that.

You wanted a stated and documented test - I gave you a stated and documented test ... from the manufacturer of the shower pan material too. Don't like? Don't do it. YOUR CHOICE. But IT IS *THE* APPROVED TEST.

[Ken Rowe]

Ken ... I DID provide you documentation on how to test a shower pan - that test is applicable WHENEVER a shower pan is to be tested.

Ken, you sound like that person who asks for a hot dog with ketchup, mustard, and onions, then, when given what they asked for, says that they don't like ketchup, the mustard is not the right mustard, and they are allergic to onions, and, by the way, the hot dog doesn't taste any good either. People like that (like you) can never be pleased - go back and review your posts, you will see that.

You wanted a stated and documented test - I gave you a stated and documented test ... from the manufacturer of the shower pan material too. Don't like? Don't do it. YOUR CHOICE. But IT IS *THE* APPROVED TEST.

No Jerry, you gave an application during the installation of the shower pan. No matter how you want to twist it, the manufacturer specifically states, by the order of the installation instructions, that the pan needs to be tested prior to finishing the install. This does not mean it it applicable for home inspectors or anyone else after the shower install is completed.
Scenario:

Attorney for the seller: Did you test the shower pan according to the manufacturer's instructions?
Home Inspector: Yes I did.
Attorney for the seller: So, according to the instructions I had you previously read for us, you tested the shower pan prior to the installation of the tile and grout?
Home Inspector: Well, no...the shower was completely finished when I tested it.
Attorney for the seller: So you didn't really test it according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Home Inspector: Well no, but Jerry Peck said I could test it this way.

[Ted Menelly]

Some folks just get way way way way to wrapped up in themselves

A shower pan, even the old ones, were designed , or suppose to be designed, to hold water. Even if temporarily directing the water to the drain.

Why. Because water does get behind the tile and can cause a great amount of damage over time. Why does a leaking shower pan, even if it is only slight, cause damaged? Hm, I think it might be from water getting past that shower pan/liner/plastic box etc etc etc etc and gets to the wood and the wood gets wet, dries out, gets wet, dries out etc, and rots.

Why would one test a shower pan filling it with water to 3/4 to an inch below the threshold? Because this test will, if it is leaking that slight bit, accelerate the amount of water getting behind it so you can see by eye, IR camera, moisture meter, if it is leaking. If it is leaking you pass the info on to your client, that is paying you to find such things.

If you don't want to test a shower pan then live with it and don't. But to constantly try your damnedest to explain away a thousand times why you should not test that shower pan and how do you do it and where do you fill it to etc etc etc etc is absolutely foolish. It is designed to hold water. Some designs are better than others but that is what they are meant to do. Hold water until it gets to the point of draining away. If there is a tare in it. If there are nails banged thru it to low in the pan. If the drain was not hooked up properly etc etc etc etc. It will leak and needs repair.

If it does not hold water and or direct it to the drain so damage does not come to the surrounding home

It is faulty and needs repair. There is no hiding behind it. Leaks..... bad. No leaks.... good.

What the heck is so dam difficult to understand. Show me the documentation. Show me the court case. Talk to your lawyer. For gosh sakes man. If Home Inspection is that scary get the hell out of the business.

Common sense is at the very very least what all home inspectors should have. If that is lacking then find a job where you do not need it.

No, I am not coming back with documentation. Cases. Legal ethics. Moms permission. Cousin Vinni's blessing.

Common sense.

[Marc M]

Some folks just get way way way way to wrapped up in themselves

A shower pan, even the old ones, were designed , or suppose to be designed, to hold water. Even if temporarily directing the water to the drain.

Why. Because water does get behind the tile and can cause a great amount of damage over time. Why does a leaking shower pan, even if it is only slight, cause damaged? Hm, I think it might be from water getting past that shower pan/liner/plastic box etc etc etc etc and gets to the wood and the wood gets wet, dries out, gets wet, dries out etc, and rots.

Why would one test a shower pan filling it with water to 3/4 to an inch below the threshold? Because this test will, if it is leaking that slight bit, accelerate the amount of water getting behind it so you can see by eye, IR camera, moisture meter, if it is leaking. If it is leaking you pass the info on to your client, that is paying you to find such things.

If you don't want to test a shower pan then live with it and don't. But to constantly try your damnedest to explain away a thousand times why you should not test that shower pan and how do you do it and where do you fill it to etc etc etc etc is absolutely foolish. It is designed to hold water. Some designs are better than others but that is what they are meant to do. Hold water until it gets to the point of draining away. If there is a tare in it. If there are nails banged thru it to low in the pan. If the drain was not hooked up properly etc etc etc etc. It will leak and needs repair.

If it does not hold water and or direct it to the drain so damage does not come to the surrounding home

It is faulty and needs repair. There is no hiding behind it. Leaks..... bad. No leaks.... good.

What the heck is so dam difficult to understand. Show me the documentation. Show me the court case. Talk to your lawyer. For gosh sakes man. If Home Inspection is that scary get the hell out of the business.

Common sense is at the very very least what all home inspectors should have. If that is lacking then find a job where you do not need it.

No, I am not coming back with documentation. Cases. Legal ethics. Moms permission. Cousin Vinni's blessing.

Common sense.

What is this common sense that you speak of ??

[Ted Menelly]

I seldom have any contact at all with the sellers or the listing agents. Most of the time, I don't even know the seller's name, and it doesn't matter. I coordinate with the buyer or the buyer's agent. It is their role to assure the inspection is permitted, including all that makes up an inspection. Do any of the Texas inspectors in this group routinely have contact with the sellers?

Seller?

One in maybe 25, who knows, 50. Practically never. And then only in the beginning or they pop back in when I am packing up. Listing agents even less to absolutely never. Buyers agents, rarely to never. Clients, most in the end of the inspection but some an hour or so in and a very few the entire time.

I have 2 tomorrow that are going to be there from the start, the buyers that is. Sellers were called by CSS and won't be there at the inspection. I also talked to the agents, buyers, and they won't be there either.

[Ted Menelly]

What is this common sense that you speak of ??

Not sure. I think it is the 2 cents I carry in my pocket so I am never broke.

Also. I do fill tubs to the over flow. Why would I not. I personally have never seen the tub not full enough to not make it to the overflow but maybe that is just my family or is it the world. If not that full before getting in it is after jumping in or running more hot water to warm it up.

Oh wait. I think that is the type of common sense I am talking about.

Uh oh. Looky here. Another leak.

Common sense. Building sense. Contractor sense. In the field for ever sense. Inspector sense. Life sense.