Holding Home Inspectors Liable for Nondisclosure of Defects

by Thomas E. Miller and Rachel M. Miller, The Miller Law Firm
http://www.constructiondefects.com/pr_nondisclosure.asp

The Leko decision is interesting in that it not only holds the inspector liable for discovery of defects, it fails to frame what constitutes reasonable duty. The inspector may not arbitrarily conclude there is a defect, if following the Standards of Practice of a home inspection does not reveal said defect during the course a non-invasive/non-destructive inspection.

Further, the Leko decision transfers liability for the inspector by stating that the report may be used by another, without the expressed written consent of the inspector. Typically, the inspector’s duty is to the client. If the client walks away from the deal, and sells the report to another prospective buyer, the inspector unknowingly has a new client, and remains responsible for the content of the report.

I personally believe this was a terrible decision, with a level of liability unfairly placed on the inspector. First they say that the inspector is responsible for finding defects the seller knew about but failed to disclose. They then decided that the inspector has a duty to a party they have no contractural relationship with.