Results 1 to 3 of 3
-
10-10-2017, 10:11 AM #1
HI's not liable for anything above their fee?
Fine Homebuilding magazine, summer 2014, #243 p.16 article by Gary Katz:
Katz wrote:
"my attorney stated that Home-inspection companies are not liable for anything in excess of their home inspection fee."
Katz had bought a house in Oregon and later found defects missed by the pre-purchase HI.
The HI had been recommended by the realtor.
Opinions please?
Similar Threads:- Can Professional Associations Be Held Liable in Negligence?
- Rotted joist ends into the wall - Is the inspector liable?
- Ontario court: Buyers, Realtor, Inspector all liable for house damage, not the seller
- Lying Seller Found Liable for Hiding Mold
- Home inspector only liable for intentional damage - Kitsap Sun (Subscription)
-
10-10-2017, 12:27 PM #2
Re: HI's not liable for anything above their fee?
Complicated issue, and you need to supply substantially more data to render an opinion.
Dom.
-
10-10-2017, 05:11 PM #3
Re: HI's not liable for anything above their fee?
Common component of many HI contracts is a limit of loss to the amount of the inspection fee. It is generally not a defensible legal position. It does help to persuade many unhappy buyers to settle with a return of their fee and sign a release of any future damages.
This is a legal question that is best answered by legal experts and not home inspectors.
"The Code is not a peak to reach but a foundation to build from."
Bookmarks