Anyone ever sue a home inspector and won?

[Mama2Three]

We bought a house during the summer. When we first saw the house, we noticed a crack running through the mortar at one corner of the house. When we hired a home inspector, we chose one who purported to be a structural engineer. He ok'd the crack as cosmetic because he saw no evidence of cracking in the walls, ceilings, and attic of the house. Turns out, the crack is not cosmetic, it's structural, mainly due to differential settlement. Also turns out that the home inspector is not a true structural engineer and does not have his Professional Engineer licensing (didn't know this existed when we hired him). It's costing us tens of thousands to repair the structural damage, plus we had to gut the basement due to water damage and mold. We still need to finish the mold remediation and re-finish the basement into the family room it was when we bought the house, which will cost 10s of thousands more.

 

We talked with an attorney who said that it is very hard to successfully sue a home inspector in VA because the courts tend to side with the professional. Also, we signed a contract that limits the inspector's liability to the cost of the inspection, about $400. According to our realtor, this language is standard in home inspector contracts. It would be expensive to hire an attorney and the likelihood of a profitable outcome, after fees, is uncertain at best.

 

The whole thing makes me sick (literally and figuratively). I just want to move, although I hesitate because of not wanting to make a bad situation even worse. Since we've done a fair amount of cosmetic work to the house, we probably could have broken even, even factoring in realtor fees -- but not factoring in all the costs of the construction and repairs.

 

So, anyone want to share some success stories? I'm trying to find the positive in the situation, but it's very hard right now. One of the reasons that we bought this house was because we could make it our own -- open up the kitchen to the living area, add a screened in porch, etc, and now that's no longer a possibility.

[LisaKinVA]

I don't know if you can really sue on the basis of the faulty inspection -- the language on the inspection documents is weighted in favor of the inspectors for that very reason. However, you may be able to sue on the basis of fraud (lying about being a structural engineer).

 

(Definition from The Free Dictionary online)

 

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

 

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

 

Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

 

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

 

If the guy "marketed" himself as a structural engineer, and that requires licensing he did not have -- knows that this is a false statement (there's the hard part), intended to deceive you (intent can be hard to prove). You questioned him about his experience in this area, and he assured you he was qualified, when he was not. You specifically pointed out the foundation crack, trusting that he was qualified to make a structural assessment based upon his statements to you regarding his qualifications. He committed fraud. Whether he can be charged criminally, I don't know -- but you could pursue a civil case (I think you still have to prove #1-5)

 

My in-laws are currently being sued for fraud in AR, the plaintiffs are demanding the full sale price of the home. I've been helping them put together the defense case file (not fun, really...not fun). Even if they win, they will still be out another $8,000+ in legal fees (and that's with them doing most of the pre-trial evidence collection, organization, and answering each charge in writing).

 

For the record, the plaintiffs cannot prove a single item on their case. No statements (that weren't factually true), No knowledge anything they might have said was false (all of their claims are backed up by e-mails, paid bills, inspections, even using persons the plaintiffs chose), There is no intent. The people can't even prove any damages (they have replaced or destroyed the "evidence" -- without allowing verification of anything).

 

So, you could probably still file a suit, just to be a royal pain. But, depending upon what documentation you have, you might have a case.

[fairfarmhand]

had he been to school to be an engineer, but just not licensed? You may want to check that before you do too much attorney work.

[Cera]

What are the laws regarding disclosure by the seller in your state? If the seller knew what the issues were and didn't disclose them you may be able to sue them.

[katemary63]

We've bought several properties and have come to believe that "home inspections" are a shame. Our friend realtor told us as much in so many words. Now, we hire our own plummer, electrician, engineer, heating/ cooling guy and roofer/ contractor to evaluate each system. There is no bias. Yes, it costs a lot more, but we're actually getting something that has meaning for the price.

[Mama2Three]

What are the laws regarding disclosure by the seller in your state? If the seller knew what the issues were and didn't disclose them you may be able to sue them.

 

The seller hid defects -- or probably more accurately, had the realtor hide defects when she hired workers to pretty up the house before listing it. Seller handed over the keys to realtor and never returned to the house after doing so. Seller also happens to be an attorney, handles real estate transactions, and I suspect that he did this on purpose to have no knowledge of the final condition of the house. Co-seller -- the seller's son was also on the contract for the sale of the house -- is also an attorney. Enough said.

[Mama2Three]

We've bought several properties and have come to believe that "home inspections" are a shame. Our friend realtor told us as much in so many words. Now, we hire our own plummer, electrician, engineer, heating/ cooling guy and roofer/ contractor to evaluate each system. There is no bias. Yes, it costs a lot more, but we're actually getting something that has meaning for the price.

 

I would absolutely do this if/when we purchase another house. And I'd add structural engineer to the list. :)

[Mama2Three]

had he been to school to be an engineer, but just not licensed? You may want to check that before you do too much attorney work.

 

Apparently he attended the US Naval Academy (I didn't verify) and has a naval engineering degree. I asked him how that pertains to home inspections and structural engineering. He responded that naval engineering covers a wide range of engineering specialties including structural engineering. Also, in addition to his home inspection business, he advertises on his website and told me that he is able to perform structural inspections as well. We thought we were getting the best of both worlds.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Apparently he attended the US Naval Academy (I didn't verify) and has a naval engineering degree. I asked him how that pertains to home inspections and structural engineering. He responded that naval engineering covers a wide range of engineering specialties including structural engineering. Also, in addition to his home inspection business, he advertises on his website and told me that he is able to perform structural inspections as well. We thought we were getting the best of both worlds.

 

Call the Attorney General's office. That sounds like false advertising to me.

[Mama2Three]

I don't know if you can really sue on the basis of the faulty inspection -- the language on the inspection documents is weighted in favor of the inspectors for that very reason. However, you may be able to sue on the basis of fraud (lying about being a structural engineer).

 

(Definition from The Free Dictionary online)

 

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

 

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

 

Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

 

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

 

If the guy "marketed" himself as a structural engineer, and that requires licensing he did not have -- knows that this is a false statement (there's the hard part), intended to deceive you (intent can be hard to prove). You questioned him about his experience in this area, and he assured you he was qualified, when he was not. You specifically pointed out the foundation crack, trusting that he was qualified to make a structural assessment based upon his statements to you regarding his qualifications. He committed fraud. Whether he can be charged criminally, I don't know -- but you could pursue a civil case (I think you still have to prove #1-5)

 

My in-laws are currently being sued for fraud in AR, the plaintiffs are demanding the full sale price of the home. I've been helping them put together the defense case file (not fun, really...not fun). Even if they win, they will still be out another $8,000+ in legal fees (and that's with them doing most of the pre-trial evidence collection, organization, and answering each charge in writing).

 

For the record, the plaintiffs cannot prove a single item on their case. No statements (that weren't factually true), No knowledge anything they might have said was false (all of their claims are backed up by e-mails, paid bills, inspections, even using persons the plaintiffs chose), There is no intent. The people can't even prove any damages (they have replaced or destroyed the "evidence" -- without allowing verification of anything).

 

So, you could probably still file a suit, just to be a royal pain. But, depending upon what documentation you have, you might have a case.

 

This gives me a lot of great information. From the attorney with whom I spoke, we could pursue either a civil or criminal suit but not both. He thought it would be hard to prove intent. It would be expensive for us to sue the inspector, plus the personal turmoil of going through a lawsuit, and even if we recovered something it would be very unlikely we would be "made whole" (attorney's words).

 

Do you think that a letter to the inspector requesting payment for the cost of construction work specific to fixing the foundation would get any results?

[mcconnellboys]

I'd sue the seller, their realty company and the inspector, if it were me.....

[mcconnellboys]

Seller can't claim no knowledge when the damage to the house is obviously something that has existed for a length of time much longer than he was out of the house....

[Mama2Three]

So, I'm getting a lot of things to consider, but I'm going to throw out my original question... anyone sue and win? Or knows someone who did? I'm wondering what the basis of the lawsuit was and whether it was worth it -- both economically and emotionally.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

We bought a house during the summer. When we first saw the house, we noticed a crack running through the mortar at one corner of the house. When we hired a home inspector, we chose one who purported to be a structural engineer. He ok'd the crack as cosmetic because he saw no evidence of cracking in the walls, ceilings, and attic of the house. Turns out, the crack is not cosmetic, it's structural, mainly due to differential settlement. Also turns out that the home inspector is not a true structural engineer and does not have his Professional Engineer licensing (didn't know this existed when we hired him). It's costing us tens of thousands to repair the structural damage, plus we had to gut the basement due to water damage and mold. We still need to finish the mold remediation and re-finish the basement into the family room it was when we bought the house, which will cost 10s of thousands more.

 

We talked with an attorney who said that it is very hard to successfully sue a home inspector in VA because the courts tend to side with the professional. Also, we signed a contract that limits the inspector's liability to the cost of the inspection, about $400. According to our realtor, this language is standard in home inspector contracts. It would be expensive to hire an attorney and the likelihood of a profitable outcome, after fees, is uncertain at best.

 

The whole thing makes me sick (literally and figuratively). I just want to move, although I hesitate because of not wanting to make a bad situation even worse. Since we've done a fair amount of cosmetic work to the house, we probably could have broken even, even factoring in realtor fees -- but not factoring in all the costs of the construction and repairs.

 

So, anyone want to share some success stories? I'm trying to find the positive in the situation, but it's very hard right now. One of the reasons that we bought this house was because we could make it our own -- open up the kitchen to the living area, add a screened in porch, etc, and now that's no longer a possibility.

 

Is it possible to file a complaint through the licensing board? We had a new roof put on the house we own in VA, and paid extra for the work to be "warrantied" by the contractor. Only a couple years later, the roof is leaking again and the contractor refuses to do warranty work. When our manager got estimates from other companies, they listed a number of things that were either not done per the contract or were inappropriate to the roof pitch (rusty flashing indicating it wasn't replaced, wrong materials for the pitch).

 

We've given up on the idea of suing for the cost of the new, new roof. But we are pursuing filing a complaint with the state that could get him fined through a state contractors' board. We're still in the middle of this and I don't know if it would apply to your inspection situation. It probably wouldn't recover you the cost of the poor inspection, but it might be a painful consequence for him.

[OregonNative]

I would google your question to find more answers:)