Working RE Home Inspector - Issue 32

Now Reaching Over 25,000 Inspectors in Print and Online—Get the latest news at workingre.com

Home Inspector Working RE

Fall 2026, Issue 32

DATA WARS:

Big Money’s Race to Own

Your Clients

Is the Limitation of Liability Clause Too Unfair?

COMPREHENSIVE

BACK COST COVER LOW E&O INSURANCE

Working RE 6353 El Cajon Blvd. Suite 124-605 San Diego, CA 92115

Play Chess, Don’t Box: Communicating With Difficult Clients

Finally, Commercial Coverage for CCPIA® Members: Key Coverage Highlights • No Square Footage Cap—inspect buildings of any size • 100% Commercial Firms OK—your professionalism is valued! • Restaurants & Commercial Kitchens covered • Warehouses, Hotels, Schools, Medical Facilities & more • Residential and Broad Commercial Coverage in a Single Policy • $100K Defense Coverage for excluded system claims • FREE Attorney-Led Pre-Claims Defense ($600 value) • No Business Audit or hoops to jump through

Mid-Term Transfers Accepted | Prior Acts Covered Switch now and get real protection. Stop turning down business because of coverage gaps.

What Are You Covered For? PROPERTY TYPE

BASE POLICY

CCPIA®

Apartments and Condos

Exclusive, Expanded Policy for CCPIA® Members through Partnership With OREP Insurance From your first commercial inspection to scaling your business, OREP’s exclusive CCPIA® partnership provides the broadest commercial coverage in the profession—all in one policy.

Office Buildings Retail (non-restaurant)

*OREP Members also enjoy these benefits:

Restaurants and Kitchens

×

Warehouses

×

Hotels and Hospitality

×

Schools and Churches

×

Medical Facilities

×

Per Project SF Limit

100K SF

No Limit

Commercial Biz % Max

40%

100%

• FREE Attorney-Led Pre-Claims Defense ($600 value) • Guaranteed delivery of Working RE Home Inspector Magazine • Unlimited Free SignItSecure E-Signatures • FREE ServeYouReviews Online SEO/Review Aggregator PLUS $100K Aggregate Defense Only Coverage for nuisance claims involving fire suppression systems, commercial kitchen equipment, Phase I environmental, and life & safety systems, which are excluded from policy, inspection agreement and CCPIA® ComSOP.

Get Your Quote Today:

Call (888) 347-5273 | OREP.org/commercialinspectors *OREP Member benefits provided as part of membership in the OREP Risk Purchasing Group, in all states where applicable. Calif. Lic. #0K99465

Home Inspector Working RE

Advertise!

Now Reaching 25,000+ Inspectors Nationwide!

Fall 2026, Vol. 32

4 4

From the Publisher Readers Respond

6 14

Data Wars: Big Money’s Race to Own Your Clients by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Is the Limitation of Liability Clause Too Unfair? by Isaac Peck, Publisher

18

Play Chess, Don’t Box: Communicating With Difficult Clients by Kendra Budd, Editor

24 28

From Clipboard to Courtroom: Home Inspectors as Expert Witnesses by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Weather in Home Inspection Reports by Greg Nelms, Nelms Inspections

30

New York Inspector Wins in Court (Thanks to the Contract) by Isaac Peck, Publisher

34 38

Siding Stains: Why Do Houses Cry? by Reuben Saltzman, Structure Tech

Bundling Services: Increasing Revenue and Client Satisfaction by Shawn Patterson, CenTex Inspection Services

Mission Working RE Home Inspector magazine is published tri-annually to help home inspectors build their businesses, reduce their liability and risk, and stay informed on important technology and industry issues.

Published by OREP Working RE Home Inspector is published by OREP Insurance Services, LLC, a leading provider of home insp ector insurance nationwide. OREP has a low cost, broad coverage E&O and General Liability policy that includes coverage for radon, infrared, termite, pest/rodent, lead paint, mold, drone, and more. Visit OREP.org/inspectors for more information or to get a quote in five minutes or less! OREP Insurance Services, LLC. Calif. Lic. #0K99465

2

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Publisher Isaac Peck: isaac@orep.org

Marketing Manager/ Senior Graphic Designer Ariane Herwig: ariane@orep.org

Working RE 6353 El Cajo n Bl vd. Su i t e 124- 6 05 San Diego, CA 92115 (8 8 8) 347–5273 www.workingre.com

Editor Kendra Budd: kendra@orep.org Working RE Home Inspector is published tri-annually and mailed to home inspectors nationwide. The ads and specific mentions of any proprietary products contained within are a service to readers and do not imply endorsement by Working RE. No claims, representations or guarantees are made or implied by their publication. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either whole or in part without written consent.

From the Publisher by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Readers Respond

I never thought I’d write one of those “I remember the

Mold Testing: A Winning Strategy for Inspectors [This article] does a great job of showing that mold testing is more than just an additional service; it’s a practical way for inspectors to provide greater value while giving clients extra confidence in their investment. I also liked the focus on educating homeowners, reducing liability, and using thoughtful marketing rather than hard selling. When these elements come together, they not only improve the customer experience but also help create steady, long-term business growth. —Tony Johnson

days” notes, especially not in my mid-3 0 s, but here we are! Writing “Data Wars,” the cover story for this issue, brought back memories of the early days of my career serving home inspectors 15 years ago. Inspectors who’ve been around more than a decade and attended industry events might remember Dominic Maricic, founder of Home Inspector Pro, the late Carl Fowler of 3D Inspection Systems, Nathan Thornberry, founder of Residential Warranty Services, and Dan Huber and Chris Schuld, founders of Inspection Support Network. When I was in my early 20s attending home inspector conferences, these individuals were seen as (and were) the titans. They built many of the tools that propelled the profession forward. I remember cold-calling Russell Buchanan, co-founder of HomeGauge, in 2015 when I first launched Working RE Home Inspector. He took the back cover of the magazine and HomeGauge held it for years, well past its acquisition by American Family. Back then, the profession’s leading service and software providers were led by ambitious entrepreneurs who had built their firms from scratch, cared deeply about how their companies served the home inspection community, and knew many of their customers by name—having built their reputation and relationships over decades. A lot has changed since then. Today, most of the largest software and service providers are owned by large capital interests—many by either Porch or Radian Capital. Private equity is even trying to buy up the largest home inspection firms and make mega-firms! (See LaunchPad and US Inspect.) I’m seeing the same thing happen in my industry, with private-equity-backed players buying up smaller, entrepreneur-led insurance programs like mine. Call me an optimist, but I’d still put my money on us little guys. Scrappy entrepreneurs who can remember our customers’ names, know the meaning of service, and genuinely care, still stand more than a fighting chance against MBAs from Harvard and Stanford. I believe it for my own business, I believe it for yours, and I think we’ll see new home inspection software companies emerge that are laser-focused on the home inspector’s needs. Here’s to the customer-focused entrepreneurs! WRE 4

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

It’s interesting to see how much mold testing has grown as part of home inspections. The part about Realtors® actively requesting mold tests really highlights how client expectations are shifting. For inspectors, it seems like a smart move to offer mold testing—not just as an upsell, but also as a way to expand their business and stand out in a competitive market. The growth stats and lab demand really drive that point home. —Thaddeus Augustus Wigglesworth WRE

Data Wars: Big Money’s Race to Own Your Clients by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Once upon a time, the service providers in the home inspection space were small businesses led by bootstrapped entrepreneurs whom many home inspectors knew personally. Those days are over. Residential Warranty Services (RWS), Home Inspector Pro (HIP), Spectora, HomeGauge, and Inspection Support Network (ISN). These are the largest service providers for home inspectors in the U.S., and, by Working RE’s estimate, account for roughly 85 percent of inspection software used by inspectors. These software and warranty brands are now controlled by only two entities: Porch and Radian Capital. Inspectors who have lived through these acquisitions know what happens when private equity controls the software their business runs on. The tremendous race of capital into the inspection space comes down to one thing: data. The data that comes with a home inspection—information about the home and the relationship with the homebuyer (and their contact information)—can be used to sell insurance, alarm packages, home renovation and maintenance products, utility startup services, and the list goes on. The only problem? That client relationship belongs to the home inspector. The result has been an intense struggle over who owns that relationship, and ultimately over the core of the inspector’s business. What will happen next is the real question. Data Hungry Starting with American Family Insurance’s 2017 acquisition of HomeGauge, the largest inspection software business at the time, public and private capital has been increasingly interested in the home inspection space. Porch, a publicly traded home services business, joined the fray, acquiring ISN in 2017. Porch Isaac Peck is the Publisher of Working RE magazine and the Senior Broker and President of OREP.org, a leading provider of E&O insurance for savvy professionals in 50 states and DC. Over 14,000 professionals trust OREP for their E&O and liability insurance. Isaac received his master’s degree in accounting at San Diego State University. Reach Isaac at isaac@orep.org or (888) 347-5273. CA License #4116465.

6

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

went on to obtain Palm Tech Home Inspection Software in 2020 and America’s Call Center in 2021. The rush of capital has only accelerated in the last five years. Porch now claims that over 40 percent of home inspections run on its software, and it has made it no secret that it has a key interest in the inspector’s relationship with the homebuyer. ISN updated its Terms of Service shortly after it was acquired by Porch, and inspectors soon learned that they had been auto-opted into the new “Porch Program,” which inserted new consent language for the inspector’s customer into the signing flow: By clicking below, I [client name] consent to have [inspection company], Porch and my Home Assistant, and providers of products and services for my home to call or text me at the number I provide, including using automated, prerecorded or autodialed calls. I understand that my consent to marketing communications is not required to make a purchase. Turning it off meant digging into the settings menu and finding the Porch toggle, a step most inspectors did not know existed until another inspector told them. Bob Elliott posted the opt-out instructions on the InterNACHI® forum that same September of 2017, pointing out that every other add-on service inspectors used was opt-in, but this one was not. Many inspectors complained that they had never agreed to sharing their customer data and felt betrayed. A thread on InterNACHI®’s forums titled “ISN sells out?” drew 104 replies and more than 12,000 views. By December, a second thread had appeared under the heading “PORCH (formerly ISN) is going too far.” There have been similar home inspector revolts against most inspection software providers post-acquisition, precisely because the big money owners often introduce some forced or auto-opt-in solution designed to market directly to the inspector’s customer. When American Family Insurance bought HomeGauge, it announced that the pooled data from HomeGauge inspections would help it “protect consumers.” While the company said there page 88

7page 6 would be “no surprise sales calls or emails to you or your customers,” a few weeks later HomeGauge emailed inspectors telling them to modify their own client agreements by January 31, 2018. The required language said client, inspector, agent, and property information would be collected into HomeGauge and “may subsequently be used by the provider of HomeGauge.” Inspectors were understandably upset. An insurance carrier now owned the software that captured the buyer’s name, phone number, email, and the condition of the house. Michael Gleeson posted the email to the InterNACHI® forum under the heading “HomeGauge behaving like Porch.” That thread produced 207 replies and more than 15,000 views. HomeGauge faced a second revolt in 2022, when it began presenting insurance offers to clients at the moment they went to access their inspection reports. Brian Cawhern, CMI, wrote that HomeGauge was capturing his clients’ email addresses and marketing to them, that the client belonged to him and not to the software company, and that he was paying to acquire that client and then paying again for the software. At an industrywide inspection conference Working RE Home Inspector attended shortly after HomeGauge’s 2022 announcement, there was talk of a mass exodus of inspectors away from HomeGauge. Meanwhile, Porch kept buying. In 2022 Porch picked up Home Inspector Pro (HIP) for an undisclosed amount, as well as the home warranty and inspection software businesses of Residential Warranty Services (RWS), paying $33 million for the assets. Nathan Thornberry had built RWS (in part) by turning home inspectors into a collection channel for homeowner data. Porch was interested in RWS’s business by itself, but perhaps more interested in the direct path to the homebuyer that came with it. Two years later, Porch described its approach to homeowners insurance as leveraging “unique data for advantaged underwriting.” Thornberry, who retained the RWS corporate entity after the asset sale, sued Porch in June 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware over the deal. The case is Residential Warranty Services, Inc. v. Porch.com, Inc. Spectora Fiasco Spectora has spent much of the last decade as the alternative to big corporate-owned software. Launched in 2017, Kevin and Michael Wagstaff, two brothers, built Spectora’s user base by showing up at InterNACHI® events, answering feature requests personally, and telling inspectors they were different. When inspectors revolted against ISN in 2017, and against HomeGauge in 2022, Spectora was there. The goal of the Wagstaffs was always to sell though, once sufficient scale was reached. Radian Capital quietly took a minority stake in 2023 at a $90 million valuation and later moved to a majority position at a $110 million valuation. Radian Capital, 8

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

obviously invigorated about the inspection space, provided the financial backing for Spectora to buy HomeGauge in April 2025. On March 31, 2026, Spectora gave its users one week’s notice, announcing a new partnership with Fixle. Beginning April 7, clients opening their inspection reports would see Fixle Protection Products inside the client portal, offering homeowners insurance, home warranties, and home security products. There was no opt-out for inspectors. By the time Spectora made this change, it had built itself into arguably the leading inspection software on the market, with over 10,000 inspectors on its platform. In other words, it was single-handedly rivaling Porch’s many acquisitions, closing in on 40 percent of the inspection software market itself. The home inspector community’s response was both panicked and enraged. Over 10,0 0 0 inspectors were now having their client relationships disintermediated by the largest player in the space, with no way to opt out. Alongside its new Fixle marketing program, Spectora launched a rewards program that credited inspectors with points when their clients engaged with Fixle offers. Spectora did not say what the points were worth. A thread on the InterNACHI® forum titled “Forced Partnership” ran to 284 replies within days. George Spetz, owner of Central Jersey Inspections, captured the sentiment of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of inspectors when he defiantly wrote: I am moving my business off the platform, regardless of any future concessions regarding Fixle. A last-minute opt-out provision will not change my course. The perceived disrespect and the aggressive corporate positioning against the small businesses that fueled their growth have made the relationship untenable. I cannot align my brand with an organization that maintains such a posture toward its users. Jessica Brownwood, Chief Growth Officer at Greenworks Inspections, arguably the largest, privately held inspection firm in the United States, posted a taunting video to Facebook, saying: Let’s talk about Spectora for a second. I spent two million dollars last year in customer acquisition. I paid you six figures. And you think you’re going to offer my customers and monetize my customers that I paid to acquire, all while I’m a paying customer of yours? That’s not how this works. We’re not dumb inspection companies. Let’s go. (Watch the full reel here: Bit.ly/f b-brownwood). Spectora reversed course on April 4, four days after the announcement and three days before the rollout was to begin. In a note posted to the company’s website, CEO Peter Osberg told inspectors he owed them a direct conversation. The company page 10 8

7page 8 had heard them loud and clear and “moved too fast with this,” he wrote, introducing something into their businesses without delivering clear value upfront and without making sure inspectors were in control. “That caused real stress and anxiety, and I want to apologize for that,” Osberg wrote. Inspectors who did not see value in Fixle could opt out, he said, and Spectora was building self-service controls to let them manage settings down to the individual product. The company still intended to build the Fixle brand, but would have to earn inspectors’ trust by building it with them. Many inspectors did not accept the apology. When the letter was posted to the InterNACHI® forum under the heading “We won,” Ian Mayer, CMI, called it a pompous and arrogant apology. David Freund asked why Fixle was mentioned in an apology at all. Bert Hull, CMI, said Spectora still planned to harvest client data one way or another, whether it disclosed that or not, and that he was evaluating alternatives. Brian Cawhern, CMI, put it most plainly, “That was not an apology because they are not sorry. That was a minor course correction with an opt-out option.” The Homebuyer Was the Plan Kevin Wagstaff, one of the brothers who founded Spectora, gave a ver y revealing podcast interview at BuiltToSell.com. Wagstaff is describing how he and his brother did a formal process looking for a buyer in March 2022. At the time, Spectora had 9,200 home inspectors subscribed to its software, against a total addressable market of 30,000, according to Wagstaff. Wagstaff describes how, with over 30 percent of the market, some private equity investors didn’t believe Spectora had much growth left in the tank. (Spectora ended up growing towards 40 percent of the market.) Wagstaff then explains how he and his brother addressed these “market size” concerns: What is the story [to grow our total addressable market]? We also looked at the homeowner and insurance basically, after the sale. What that could lead to. We purposely mapped out a second and third act in our [investment] deck to present. To say: hey guys, if we max out our industry, let’s say we get to 50 percent market share. Cool, maybe it’s a $150 million dollar business. But if we monetize the homebuyer and have all these other products we can stack on and go to adjacencies, ok now we’re in that $300, $400, $500 million dollar range. Our bankers really helped us map out those scenarios. In other words, the Wagstaff brothers were deliberately dangling the opportunity of “monetizing the homebuyer” to private equity buyers as part of the story behind a $90 million minority stake in 2023 and a $110 million valuation in 2024. The pitch was that Spectora could quadruple in value, in part, by facilitating offers of insurance and warranties to the buyers already flowing through the software. By “leveraging” the home inspector’s clients, Spectora could grow to a $500 million valuation, the story goes. Radian Capital apparently saw the opportunity and went for it. 10 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Betrayal KC Bartley, a Tennessee home inspector, was one of the vocal inspectors who was deeply disappointed by Spectora’s attempted rollout of Fixle. Bartley’s voice carries in this space, in part, because he built a report template that is incredibly popular amongst home inspectors. The KC Bartley Inspection Template contains more than 6,000 narratives and is used by more than 500 inspection companies across nearly every state. It was originally built for Spectora. Bartley sees the similarities between what Spectora did and what Porch and HomeGauge did in the past: In 2017, before Spectora really came into fruition, most report writing software providers like HomeGauge and HIP weren’t allin-one platforms. They didn’t have payment integration or scheduling. That year, ISN was purchased by Porch, and they did the exact same thing: they said, ‘we’re going to market to your clients, we’re going to offer your clients additional services.’ Spectora was starting up right around the same time ISN announced this. That really led to Spectora’s dominance. They became one of the first true all-in-one platforms for inspectors, and they weren’t trying to market to the home inspector’s clients back then. When Spectora made its own announcement on March 31, Bartley says the language was familiar. “It was the exact same thing. In the initial announcement, they didn’t give us an option to opt out. They said they had polled inspectors and realtors and found they would like these services offered to them. Starting on this date, your clients will see Fixle products offered to them,” reports Bartley. Bartley continued: That inspector-client relationship belongs to the inspector. We spent our marketing dollars to get that client. We performed the inspection to get their trust. The homebuyer doesn’t necessarily differentiate between the inspector and the software platform the inspector uses. If, after the inspection, they begin seeing marketing offers or communications inside the same client experience where they receive their inspection report, they may view those offers as coming from, or being endorsed by, the inspector. That puts our reputation into a marketing relationship we didn’t choose. That creates the potential to damage some of the trust we worked to build with that client. What sharpened it, Bartley told me, was the contrast with the feature requests inspectors had been filing for years: I was mowing my lawn when I got the notification. I pulled out my phone, saw an upcoming feature from Spectora, and read it. I stopped mowing. I had to get off my mower. I was so disappointed because there have been so many features we have wanted them to implement and we’ve been asking for years. To have the time to roll out a program that benefits them, but not work on the things that benefit us, their clients, their revenue generators—it hurt. I knew right then I was going to have to find another software.

Bartley does not expect software platforms to stay independent forever: I understand that as these companies grow, outside investment or acquisition may eventually become part of the equation. But these companies have to know that the client relationship belongs to us. Home inspectors are the software provider’s client, but the homebuyer is our client. Now with AI, it is going to be insane the amount of data they are able to capture. They want to sell home insurance and warranties and alarm systems. They want to hook up the utilities, and more. My advice to home inspectors is don’t allow vendors to market to your clients unless you have affirmatively chosen to participate. It should always be the inspector’s choice, not the vendor’s choice. It’s your reputation and your credibility. Regulatory Concerns There are also regulatory concerns. During the HomeGauge and Spectora controversies, inspectors pointed to Louisiana’s Code of Ethics for licensed home inspectors which bars a licensee from disclosing inspection results or a client’s personal information without the client’s approval, and separately prohibits accepting compensation “directly or indirectly, for referring or recommending contractors or other service providers or products to inspection clients” unless the arrangement is disclosed and scheduled before the inspection takes place (Title 46, Part XL, Chapter 5, §501). Inspectors in Wisconsin raised the same

objection, pointing to state law barring direct and indirect kickbacks for referrals, and no state board has publicly answered whether a software vendor’s marketing program puts a licensee in violation. Building an Alternative Nick Gromicko, founder of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors (InterNACHI®), argues that inspectors have misread the situation from the beginning. “The only reason our industry thinks for-profit companies shouldn’t have their fingers in this profession is InterNACHI®. Anywhere else in life, you walk into McDonald’s and you know they’re trying to upsell you. Nobody’s offended. We held the ethical ground so high for so long that the industry gets flustered when it runs into reality,” says Gromicko. Gromicko does not think the big money buyers were ever after subscription revenue: Every one of these software companies is a for-profit business. Everyone has to realize that Porch, which is now a $1.6 billion market cap, for-profit, public company, didn’t buy inspection software companies to sell inspection software. Nobody big wants your page 12 8

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 11

7page 11 $499-a-year software. There’s no money in it. The value is in the data. The economics and the value of the home inspectors’ data mean that every software company that gets to 500 users will be getting too-good-to-turn-down offers from private equity. It makes acquisitions and roll ups of software vendors inevitable. Gromicko has seen what the data is worth firsthand: Why would somebody big want inspection software? These are second grade questions. The way you price insurance really well is through data. We were offered north of $200 million to put InterNACHI® underneath a management company so they could get at the home inspectors’ data. I turned it down. Matt Ehrlichman at Porch is a longtime friend of mine, comes out three or four times a year, and I won’t sell him data either. InterNACHI® has never given him one piece of data. InterNACHI® resisted for decades the call to get into home inspection software. Now, Gromicko says he has no choice: Based on what we’ve seen over the last five years, I’m doing software because it’s too valuable to survive without being purchased. Big money is coming after the inspectors’ data. InterNACHI® has always stood behind home inspectors so the best way we can do that now is to build our own software. In phase two, we will build a way for the inspector to ethically sell their own data, if they want to, on a

12 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

platform with their own clients’ permission. It will be the inspector’s choice. I think it can provide a second source of income for home inspectors and provide something really valuable for the client as well. Conclusion Spectora is only the latest in the decades-long struggle between home inspectors and their service providers in the war for data. While Spectora backed down earlier this year, nothing about the ownership of the industry changed. Two companies now control roughly 85 percent of all home inspection software. And both are aggressively pursuing market share. In late July 2026, Spectora CEO Peter Osberg posted to LinkedIn an announcement that Carson Dunlop, an industry veteran serving inspectors for over 50 years, was retiring its Horizon software and recommending Spectora as the platform for its customers. Many inspectors have left Spectora for smaller platforms this year and they are betting those platforms stay small. But if Gromicko is right, any of them that get big enough will be bought too. What inspectors did prove in April is that they have leverage. They complained loudly enough that a company reversed itself in four days. The move proved risky for Spectora as well, as many home inspectors lost trust in the company and publicly documented their switch to other providers (like KC Bartley). Will that leverage hold? And how safe is the inspector’s data anyway? Time will tell. WRE

Is the Limitation of Liability Clause Too Unfair? by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Home inspectors frequently celebrate legal cases where their contracts hold up and successfully protect their colleagues from lawsuits. But a contract is not always enough. Elsewhere in this issue, a Long Island inspector won a four-year fight because his agreement was clear and his clients ignored it (see page 30). This case is the other side of that. The Mississippi Court of Appeals threw out an entire home inspection agreement this year, arbitration clause and all. The contract capped the inspector’s liability at $600 and gave the homeowner one year to sue. The court found both terms unconscionable—in other words, too unfair for the homeowner. As a result, the entire contract was thrown out (Patriot Inspects LLC v. McKenzie, Mississippi Court of Appeals, 2026). Backstory Jennifer McKenzie bought a home in Hattiesburg, Mississippi and hired a licensed inspector to look at the property. The inspector completed the report and McKenzie “relied” on it. The inspection report contained no cautions or red flags, no indication that she ought to bring in specialists to further investigate. So she closed on the house and moved in, settling in to start graduate school at nearby University of Southern Mississippi. Within months, McKenzie discovered water leaks and plumbing defects. She hired an additional home inspector, who found, according to court filings, “significant roof deficiencies, such as missing and improperly installed roofing materials and flashing; missing gutters and disconnected downspouts; water intrusion into the crawlspace; rotten support beams; leaning block piers; the absence of insulation in the crawlspace; electrical safety issues; improperly functioning doors and windows; widespread moisture damage to the ceilings, walls, and floors; spongy flooring; mold; foundation and structural damage; countertop damage; and termite damage.” Repairs ballooned into six‑figure territory, far beyond anything McKenzie could have anticipated. McKenzie’s pre-inspection agreement contained a standard Limitation of Liability clause that capped her potential recovery at $600 (calculated as “twice the cost of inspection” as a maximum), and mandated arbitration. The agreement also gave her only one year to bring any claim, which is necessarily void by Mississippi law. So McKenzie sued for negligence, but also for the emotional toll of discovering that her home contained such serious structural 14 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

defects. The company that did the original inspection, Patriot Inspects, tried to force the case into arbitration. The circuit court where McKenzie brought the suit rejected Patriot’s arguments, and recently the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed that decision against Patriot. McKenzie’s claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, now get to move forward in a substantive trial unless Patriot appeals or settles. Why the Contract Failed Patriot’s inspection agreement set the stage for the dispute. Dividing dispute resolution tiers by dollar amount, it specified that small claims-sized disputes should go to the local circuit court, but anything larger would trigger binding arbitration, with each side paying its own costs. The agreement also imposed two major restrictions on the homeowner: a liability cap limiting Patriot’s exposure to $600 on a $300 inspection, and a one‑year deadline to bring any claim. One interesting thing about the cap was that McKenzie had been given the option of a much more expensive inspection, one that ran around $25,000 rather than $300, and under the terms of the more expensive service, there would be no damage cap. McKenzie argued that the implication was that the cheaper option came with a reduced set of professional obligations. Buying into McKenzie’s argument, the appellate court took the position that choosing that cheaper inspection option did not reduce the inspector’s professional obligations. The inspector, licensed in Mississippi, was still bound to meet state standards, regardless of price point. The court emphasized that buyers rely heavily on inspection reports when making major financial decisions, and without any warning signs in the report, McKenzie had no reason to hire additional experts before closing. The appellate court also highlighted a structural imbalance baked into Patriot’s agreement: While the contract capped McKenzie’s damages at $600 and forced her to arbitrate any claim over $3,500, Patriot retained the ability to pursue its own claims, such as collecting the $300 inspection fee, in real

court. Thus, the company was able to access a venue of resolution unavailable to the client. The court did not look kindly on this imbalance. In Mississippi, statutory law holds that a party who causes harm through substandard work should be responsible for the actual damages that flow from that negligence. A liability cap that reduces that responsibility to one or two times the fee undercuts that principle. But the court emphasized that a liability cap isn’t automatically invalid. In commercial settings where both parties have equal bargaining power, courts routinely enforce such caps. But home inspections are consumer transactions, and consumers typically lack the expertise, leverage, or legal sophistication to negotiate terms. In the McKenzie case, the court saw the agreement as one example of a broader, unfair risk‑shifting scheme. The one-year deadline failed for the same reason. Mississippi gives plaintiffs three years to bring a negligence claim, and homeowners often need that long to discover a defect, gather evidence, and decide whether to sue. The Court of Appeals held that cutting three years to one was substantively unconscionable. The court put all of these considerations together and concluded that they created what it called a “significant disparity” between the parties. The limitation of liability, the arbitration requirement, and the one‑year limitations period worked in tandem to favor Patriot and deprive McKenzie of a meaningful remedy. Because the unfair terms were intertwined, the court held the agreement “substantively unconscionable” and refused to enforce the arbitration clause. The Arbitration Clause Arbitration clauses are usually the most durable part of any consumer contract. Courts routinely enforce them even when other provisions might raise eyebrows. But in McKenzie, the Court of Appeals examined how the arbitration clause functioned within the overall structure of the agreement. What they found was a system designed to channel disputes into a forum where Patriot’s other contract terms would control the outcome, i.e., its limitation of liability clause. Because what the court saw as “unfair terms” were woven directly into the arbitration framework, the court concluded they couldn’t be severed without rewriting the agreement. Once the liability cap and shortened limitations period fell, the arbitration clause fell with them. The entire contract was declared substantively unconscionable, and Patriot lost the ability to force the dispute out of court. The Emotional‑Distress Claim McKenzie’s intentional‑infliction‑of‑emotional‑distress (IIED) claim now proceeds in open court. This doesn’t mean the claim

“Once a contract collapses, even those claims that inspectors view as long‑shots become far more dangerous, because they can’t be arbitrated, timelimited or damage-capped away.”

will succeed; IIED torts are tough to win anywhere, including in Mississippi. But McKenzie gets to try, which raises the stakes for Patriot. It has to watch as McKenzie gives testimony around these emotional‑distress allegations, introducing the jury to a layer of harm that the court can interpret more severely than arbitrators would. To prevail in that IIED claim, McKenzie must prove extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of Patriot, behavior so far beyond ordinary negligence that it “evokes outrage or revulsion,” according to common interpretation of those laws. Mississippi courts, like those in other states, set this bar high and don’t allow simple mistakes, or even careless mistakes, to qualify as IIED. McKenzie must also demonstrate that the inspector intended to cause emotional harm, or acted with reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing it. The second claim might be easier to prove than the first, but it’s still a challenge. Finally, plaintiffs in IIED cases must establish that they suffered severe emotional distress as a direct result of the conduct in question: not just frustration or disappointment, but genuine emotional distress. These are steep requirements, but without the contract’s liability cap or arbitration clause, McKenzie gets to meticulously lay out the case, and Patriot faces full exposure if a jury finds the conduct sufficiently egregious. There’s an important takeaway here: Once a contract collapses, even those claims that inspectors view as long‑shots become far more dangerous, because they can’t be arbitrated, time-limited or damage-capped away. Takeaways for Inspectors There are already a number of states that either (1) prohibit home inspectors from limiting their liability by contract, or (2) have legal precedents that are not friendly to limitations of liability. It appears that Mississippi now belongs on that list. It’s also worth noting that in this case, the inspection agreement also gave McKenzie only one year to bring any claim, which Mississippi law does not permit. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-5 voids any contractual attempt to lengthen or shorten a limitations period. page 16 8

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 15

7page 15 While such clauses are enforceable in most states, Mississippi is amongst a handful of states that do not allow shortened statute of limitations clauses and voids them outright by statute. Alabama, Florida, Idaho and South Dakota do the same. This is an important consideration for home inspectors in these states. In this case, the court found that the limitation of liability and the shortened period were so tightly intertwined with the arbitration clause that it couldn’t sever them without rewriting the agreement, so it opted to just throw out the whole agreement. This raises the importance of having a severability clause in a home inspector’s pre-inspection agreement. Without one, having just one part of your agreement that is out of line with state statutes can allow a clever plaintiff to get the entire agreement thrown out. (OREP provides its home inspector insureds with attorney-prepared, state-specific agreements with the necessary clauses. To learn more about OREP’s insurance and risk management solutions, visit OREP.org/inspectors.) Lastly, this case is unique in that the court is allowing the emotional distress claims to move forward. Even if they’re hard to win, an emotional distress claim can survive early motions and

“This case is unique in that the court is allowing the emotional distress claims to move forward.”

create significant litigation risk when courts see other evidence of bad-faith behavior. Appeals Ahead Mississippi attorney Madison Taylor, who writes the Mississippi Appeals Blog, said the following after the Court of Appeals decision: “I am putting this one on cert watch. Citing the Federal Arbitration Act, the dissent took issue with the majority’s holding that the arbitration agreement was rendered unconscionable by the limitation of liability and limitations period.” In other words, there may be grounds for appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court or even the United States Supreme Court. Still, with the facts of the case so starkly bad for the firm, and the terms of the contract so clearly contradictory to Mississippi law, it’s difficult to imagine Patriot prevailing on appeal. Only time will tell. WRE

New Resources to Support Home Inspectors Are Here Updated Mechanical Systems and Structural Systems Manuals, which include the NHIE Content Manual and Business Manual New features include expanded explanations, updated information and more detailed illustrations.

Digital Illustrations Available for Purchase Perfect for visual learners. Illustrations for home inspectors and software providers to use in reports, system and component use and installation are now available for separate purchase.

Learn more at nationalhomeinspectorexam.org 16 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Play Chess, Don’t Box: Communicating With Difficult Clients by Kendra Budd, Editor

You can feel your heart rate shoot through the roof as you answer the phone and a past client starts angrily laying into you for “missing something.” You pause. Take a breath. If you haven’t experienced this yet, it’s likely that you will in your career as an inspector. Ian Robertson, host of the Inspector Toolbelt Podcast, once had a client screaming at him over the results of a home inspection report and interrupting him every time he tried to answer. Instead of yelling over the client, Robertson stopped and breathed. “Before I said any answer, I would breathe, and sometimes he would get upset during my breathing. And I would let go and then I would start back at the beginning of my sentence,” he explains. Eventually, the client was able to learn that if he kept interrupting Robertson he would just keep starting over again; this eventually helped the client regulate his emotions and calm down as well. “I honestly couldn’t believe it, it deescalated him so hard,” Robertson says. Dealing with difficult clients comes with the home inspection territory (unfortunately). A seller doesn’t like your report. A potential buyer after closing is convinced there is hidden mold in the house. The water heater breaks. When the client starts a major remodel, they discover defects behind the drywall. Although it’s normal to deal with an upset customer every now and then, it shouldn’t mean you have to be thrown by it. Knowing how to handle disputes will help your longevity as an inspector and only build up your professional reputation. Here’s what you should know. The Importance of Communication If you struggle with communication, then you’ll also struggle to grow your business. Whether it’s over email, the phone, or in person, clear communication is imperative to keep a client happy. The American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) says Kendra Budd is the Editor of Working RE magazine and Marketing Coordinator for OREP Insurance. She graduated with a BA in Theatre and English from Western Washington University, and with an MFA in Creative Writing from Full Sail University. She is currently based in Seattle, WA.

18 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

effective communication should cover “key information, like logistics, scope, and findings.” This includes your list of services, what clients can expect during the inspection, and helping them understand their report. This is especially important when dealing with combative or difficult clients. Truth is, most clients aren’t intending to be difficult, but rather there’s been a breakdown in communication. Some inspectors may believe that they are already effectively communicating, but, “Psychologists like James V. Cordova of Clark University argue we miscommunicate more often than not,” writes the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI). Inspectors are the experts, so what might make sense to you might not make sense to the client. First, you need to identify if your client is actually a difficult person, or if there is a communication error. On the Inspector Toolb elt Podcast episode “Dealing with Difficult People in Home Inspections,” guest speaker David Nyman says, “If you misidentify a difficult person, you can actually make them a difficult person.” Robertson makes the same point about communication. “We all think we’re above-average communicators. Very few of us have the self-awareness to say, ‘I don’t communicate well,’” he says. Setting Expectations Before the Inspection The best way to deal with difficult clients is to make sure you are clearly communicating before, during, and after the inspection. That starts by setting expectations. You are going to be dealing with a myriad of clients, some will be selling agents, others may be first-time homebuyers—either way you should walk through your process every time. “You can avoid surprises and complaints by explaining what’s going to happen (and when),” advises ASHI. Most difficult client interactions can be prevented by communicating early on what a home inspection is, the amount of time it will take, and when they can expect their report. “When clients know what an inspection does and does not cover before they show up, they are far less likely to feel blindsided during the walkthrough,” says Trusted Home Inspections in their article “How to Handle Difficult Clients: Communication Tips for Home Inspectors.”

Working RE Home Inspector has an abundance of cautionary tales covering claims against home inspectors, often because their client wasn’t fully aware of what their inspection didn’t cover. (Read “Inspector Faces $6.4M Lawsuit Over Failure to Inspect Adjacent Lot” for an example.) Many homebuyers have unrealistic expectations, such as the belief that a home inspector should find everything “wrong” with a home—but as all home inspectors know, your scope of work is limited. Trusted Home Inspections suggests that you can set these expectations as soon as booking occurs, “Explain that the inspection is a visual evaluation of accessible systems and components on the day of the inspection. Note that some areas like inside walls, under flooring, and buried systems are outside the scope.” Then you can remind your client of these expectations when you show up for the walkthrough. You’ll also want to make sure your communication skills are catered to your specific client. Most people you encounter won’t be familiar with home inspector jargon, so you might need to explain it in a way they can understand. However, there is a fine line here, as a client may think you’re insulting their intelligence. “If you go too low, you might be offending them … So, you need to find the right level there,” Nyman says. You might just need to give your findings more context. Finally, remember as an inspector your job is to provide facts, not speculation. Although you want to provide as much necessary context to your findings as possible, effective communication is limiting that context to only what is needed. Information overload can confuse and frustrate a client more. You may want to add to your list of expectations beforehand to let the client know you will only provide objective facts and suggested repairs. Unfortunately, even with these communication skills, you’ll likely still run into the occasional difficult client. When that scenario comes into play, you’ll need to master how to deescalate situations from becoming volatile. Techniques for Deescalation Despite effectively communicating, there may be clients who either lack comprehension, are catastrophizers, or are just plain mean. “It’s unfortunate that we have to say [this], but some people are just rough to deal with,” Robertson explains. Whether they were difficult right off the bat, or later in the process, it can be a tricky road to navigate. The first step in deescalating is to stay calm. In another episode of Inspector Toolbelt, “Quick Tip: Control the Situation,” Robertson says that his latest trick has been “deliberate breathing.” Deliberate breathing is the practice of controlling your breath. In Robertson’s case, he’ll take a deep breath in, another breath at the top, and then release a long exhale. Breathing techniques can lower your heart rate and reduce stress. Not only does this keep you calm during difficult client interactions, but you can also use it to set unconscious expectations in your client.

Robertson doesn’t just use breathing during these difficult moments, but in all his client interactions before answering a question. “When we pause before we answer, then that is expected for the rest of our answers,” he explains. So, when a client is acting unruly, and you pause to respond, they won’t become exceedingly frustrated by your hesitation, because they expect you to do so. Not only does deliberate breathing keep you calm, but it also helps your client calm down as well. The truth is, some people are looking for a fight, but Robertson would “rather play chess than a boxing match.” So, when we take the time to slow down and control our breathing, our aggressor may experience “Emotional Contagion.” Emotional contagion is when a person unconsciously mirrors or mimics the emotions of those around them. “When we talk slow, and we pause, and we think deeply, and pause, it literally slows the other person down,” says Robertson. It is what finally got the client screaming at him to stop interrupting. You’ll also want to practice active listening when struggling with difficult clients. Again, even if you are a home inspector with great communication skills, you may be failing to understand your clients due to their communication skills. “If we listen to them, we might be able to hear … what is driving this difficulty,” Nyman says. Your client could have a valid concern, and they just want to know that you are understanding them. If you’re not able to recognize their frustration you can step back, breathe, and say, “Okay, I’m sorry you feel that way. Can you help me understand that a bit better?” Robertson suggests. Active listening also helps you because it allows you to learn where you could be lacking as a home inspector. “We’re a student of all people, maybe they have a point, maybe they don’t have a point. But if we have a bit of confidence, we can absorb it, take what we need, and then move on to the next inspection,” Robertson says. This gives you a chance to review your strengths and weaknesses and will only help you grow your business. Deescalation techniques work with most people; however, there are some clients that you just can’t win over. Trusted Home Inspections says, “Some clients are not satisfiable regardless of how well you perform. They made up their mind about the outcome before talking to you, or they are using the complaint as leverage in a transaction negotiation that has nothing to do with your work.” In this case, it’s just best to focus on delivering your work as promised and documenting in writing all correspondence. Then, you move forward to the next inspection. However, there are times when you might just be better off cutting ties with certain clients. Robertson describes a time when he decided it would be better for him to cut off a seller’s agent because every time he page 22 8 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 19

Home Inspectors are more likely to face a claim than any other trade or real estate professional. You Need a Team with Experience In Your Corner Specializing in Home Inspector insurance for over 24 years, OREP Members enjoy pre-claims defense from trial attorney Geoff Binney who delivers decisive response letters and shuts down frivolous claims.

Includes E&O and General Liability GET A QUOTE IN 5 MINUTES C A L I F .

L I C .

# 0 K 9 9 4 6 5

OREP.org/inspectors

(888) 347-5273

O R E P

years

7page 19 interacted with her, she was difficult. He found out that she would tell homebuyers that Robertson would miss things on inspections, or that he was too picky. “I learned something very important, that she was trying to get me to defend myself. She was trying to bring me to her same emotional level,” Robertson says. He decided that it would be best to blacklist her from his practice to preserve everyone’s reputation, and, more importantly, peace. Cutting off an agent has a cost worth counting first. Referrals dry up, and if you start telling other people why you dropped her, you have created a different problem for yourself. Sometimes the best deescalation technique is knowing when to walk away.

claims and if you don’t report it in the policy period when you first became aware of it, you are seriously jeopardizing your coverage,” says Isaac Peck, President at OREP Insurance.

Reporting to Your Insurance While mastering the art of communication and deescalation is a muscle you can build over time, it pays to keep your insurance company in the loop about claims (defined by most policies as a “demand for money or services”), and potential claims. “We tell all our clients that they should only report claims they want coverage for. If you have a potential claim situation and you don’t report it, you risk not having coverage for it six to 12 months down the road when you renew your insurance policy. Most insurance policies have strict requirements about reporting

Final Thoughts If a client is difficult, it can feel easy to stoop to their level, but when you feel yourself getting agitated, remember to stop and breathe. Do your best to respond calmly and keep the situation from escalating. However, there’s also no shame in walking away if you’re not able to deescalate the situation or a client continues to be volatile with every interaction. Like Robertson says, “Play Chess. Don’t Box.”

22 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

This nuance highlights the importance of (1) working with an insurance provider that doesn’t penalize you for every little complaint or upset client you put on the record with them, and (2) can give you practical advice about how to proceed when you find yourself in this situation. Serving home inspectors for over 24 years, OREP doesn’t raise your rates when you keep us informed about an upset client. (Visit OREP.org/inspectors for a quote).

Stay safe out there! WRE

From Clipboard to Courtroom: Home Inspectors as Expert Witnesses by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Suing a home inspector often takes another home inspector. Courts have ruled that in lawsuits against inspectors, expert testimony is needed to establish the standards of care and whether a specific breach has occurred. An Alabama court awarded one home inspector summary judgment because the plaintiffs “had not provided expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care or [the inspectors’] breach of that standard” (LeBlanc v. Residence Doctor Home Inspection, Alabama Supreme Court, 2024). In other words, as the Alabama courts hold, “expert testimony is required when negligence is asserted against a professional.” That rule creates paid work for inspectors who can explain the standards of their own profession to a jury, and a reputation that tends to bring in more inspection work besides. Expert Witness Versus Fact Witness If you’ve ever been called to testify about what you, personally, saw in a home you were inspecting, then you were not being presented as an expert witness. The distinction turns on what kind of testimony each witness is permitted to give, and what foundation is required for it. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a non-expert witness may only testify to facts they personally perceived, and any opinions they offer must be rationally based on those perceptions rather than derived from specialized knowledge. So a non-expert home inspector might testify that they observed a missing cover plate on an electrical outlet. Expert witnesses, by contrast, are qualified through “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” and may offer opinions based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge that helps the court understand evidence or determine facts. So an expert home inspection witness might testify about the industry standards governing cover plates, and whether inspectors are expected to report a missing one. Experts may also rely on data they did not personally observe, including material that would otherwise be inadmissible, so long as experts in the field reasonably rely on it. So an expert could testify about the hazards of a missing cover plate without ever having set foot in the home at issue. 24 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Expert witnesses are paid for their time. Compensation typically includes hourly rates for document review, report preparation, depositions, and court appearances, along with retainers and travel fees. Lawyers want inspectors with strong documentation habits and clear communication skills. Some retentions never go past consultation; others end in testimony. It is not high-volume work, but it pays well when it comes up. On the low end, a home inspector expert witness might charge $150 an hour, but more typical rates are in the $200–$300 range, with some as high as $400+ per hour. The Scope of Inspector Expertise When an inspector is treated as an expert witness, two distinct lines of inquiry commonly arise: professional standards and scientific or technical causation. Each carries different risks. When other inspectors are sued, or their work comes under examination, courts frequently ask whether the applicable standard of care was met. An expert inspector can explain customary practices, typical checklists, and the industry guidance used to form an opinion. The standard attack is that a trade guideline is aspirational rather than binding. To withstand scrutiny, an inspector’s testimony should tie opinions to concrete, contemporary documentation: the inspection agreement, photos, notes, and the specific methods applied that day. The challenge is that home inspection lacks the uniform regulatory framework of fields like engineering or medicine. Trade associations such as ASHI and InterNACHI® publish standards and best practices, but those documents are not automatically seen as authoritative in court. The second line of inquiry is harder. Whoever retains you will push for the broadest testimony your credentials will carry, and the other side will work to confine you to what you actually saw. An inspector can testify to the moisture patterns they observed and what, in their professional experience, those patterns mean: “Based on the moisture readings I obtained and the staining patterns on the subfloor, the water intrusion is consistent with a long-term leak rather than a single event. In my professional experience, this pattern typically results from a failed wax ring at the toilet rather than surface spills.” Inspectors are often pushed past that boundary, onto causation, timelines, or failure probabilities beyond their training. Without

engineering-level credentials, those opinions risk exclusion, and the damage lands on the inspector’s own credibility.

area was hazardous, and that a metal component of the aircraft, one of the fuselage hooks, caused her fall.

Getting Recognized as an Expert There isn’t an “expert witness” certification. Recognition comes from the court that admits you and the lawyers who retain you. For a home inspector, the transition should not be difficult: the work already requires technical knowledge, careful documentation, and the ability to explain building problems to people who don’t understand them.

To support her claim, she offered an expert: a licensed engineer and home inspector. His entire analysis rested on a single photograph and a phone call. He didn’t measure the doorway. He didn’t know where the fuselage hooks were. He had neither examined actual airplanes nor studied aircraft design, nor had he worked in aviation. His aviation background consisted of flying as a passenger and casually researching plane crashes, about the same level of experience as anyone who’s watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel. The judge writing the decision was harsh, to say the least, calling the engineer/home inspector’s “opinions regarding the best practices for flight attendants’ deplaning duties and responsibilities . . . wholly unsupported by data, methodology, or studies.”

Courts qualify experts case by case, so recognition is about building a defensible record: certifications, field experience, continuing education, and a reputation for clear reporting. Lawyers add one more requirement; they want an expert who can hold up under cross-examination without wavering. Your own reports come first. They are the clearest evidence of how you reason, and most inspectors’ reports could be more explicit about the relationship between what was observed and what was concluded. That discipline pays off well before any courtroom, in insurance claims, contractor disputes, and mediation. A CV that shows training, specialties, and inspection volume is the document opposing counsel will work from when they try to disqualify you, and there is no telling how deep they will dig. Writing carries weight too, on your own site or in publications like Working RE Home Inspector, provided your name is on it. Attorneys hire experts they already know. The real estate attorneys, construction defect lawyers, and insurance firms retaining inspectors are the ones worth getting in front of, and the expert directories they actually search are worth being listed in. An attorney who remembers you from the social hour of a recent event will make one call when a need for expertise lands in their lap. When Courts Admit an Inspector Courts will admit a home inspector as an expert witness when the inspector’s testimony falls squarely within the technical knowledge, methods, and standards of practice that define the profession. Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the key question is whether the offered expert’s experience, training, and methodology reliably apply to the issue in dispute. Courts expect inspectors to rely on recognizable industry methods: site inspections, measurements, photographs, SOP-based reasoning, and a clear explanation of how one led to the other. What courts will not accept is an inspector venturing into fields where their expertise does not translate, or offering opinions based on speculation, limited information, or unfamiliar subject matter. Even a licensed engineer who performs home inspections cannot testify about aviation safety based on a single photo and a lifetime of flying coach. In a 2022 federal civil case, Ozuna de Larancuente v. American Airlines (U.S. District Court, E.D. New York), the plaintiff tripped while stepping from a Boeing 737 onto the jet bridge and fractured her wrist. The plaintiff argued that the plane’s doorway

In practice, home inspectors are likely to be admitted when testifying about issues like water intrusion in a crawlspace, improper deck construction, unsafe electrical panels, or whether another inspector met the standard of care. They are not likely to be admitted when the subject involves non-home issues (like aircraft thresholds), medical causation, structural engineering calculations beyond their training, commercial HVAC design, or building code interpretations they are not certified to offer. Hybrid Witnesses and the Disclosure Trap There are, of course, hybrid witnesses. A legitimate hybrid witness serves as both a fact witness (what they personally observed) and an expert (opinion about industry practices or standards). An inspector could testify about what they witnessed in a particular home and also about how industry standards relate to the case. Courts accept this dual role when the party properly discloses the witness as an expert, provides any required reports, and the testimony stays within the witness’ demonstrated qualifications. There’s a different kind of tr ying to “have it both ways” that parties sometimes attempt: They may label an inspector a lay witness to avoid expert disclosure and scrutiny, then rely on that same inspector to give expert testimony in the case. That tactic undermines procedural fairness and risks exclusion because it circumvents disclosure, methodology, and admissibility rules. Courts have enforced these boundaries. In a 2022 case in Washington, D.C. (Jones v. NVR, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), the plaintiff hired an inspector to conduct mold tests and offered him as a lay witness. The plaintiff then relied on that same inspector’s opinion that the mold was toxic, without ever designating him as an expert. Rule 26(a)(2) requires a signed written report and a disclosure deadline, both of which exist so opposing counsel has time to prepare a cross-examination. Neither happened. The court in Jones excluded testimony where the plaintiff failed to follow expert disclosure rules and attempted to bootstrap page 26 8 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 25

7page 25 expert claims through lay testimony. Parties should decide early whether an inspector will serve as an expert or a fact witness, comply with disclosure obligations, and then tailor questions and reports to that role. For inspectors, the takeaway is to insist on clarity in retention letters: define scope, state whether you will offer expert opinions, and document methods so your testimony aligns with the procedural posture and survives admissibility challenges. Malpractice Exposure Testifying as an expert can expose inspectors to malpractice claims if their opinions are deemed seriously flawed. Courts treat expert testimony differently from fact testimony: an expert is permitted to offer professional opinions based on training, experience, and recognized standards, and a judge has already evaluated whether the witness meets those qualifications. Many jurisdictions expect expert opinions to be grounded in the applicable standard of practice. Inspectors limit exposure in practical ways. Define the engagement and the scope of your expertise in writing. Document methods, photos, and the reasoning behind each call at the time you make it, not afterward. Keep the E&O policy and the fee agreement current. Above all, avoid speculative conclusions outside your expertise. Depending on the scope of what’s being asked, it is worth talking to your own attorney before accepting an expert role on either side.

Whether an inspector’s own E&O policy responds to expert witness work is a separate question, and one most inspectors have never thought to ask. Most home inspector E&O policies are designed strictly for inspecting a residential or commercial building and then writing a report on it. Testifying in court about whether another inspector’s report meets the applicable Standards of Practice is a completely different matter. It’s important to check with your E&O insurance agent to make sure you are properly covered. You may need to have a more specialized policy, depending on the type of work you are doing. Whether to let the risk of malpractice deter you from pursuing work as an expert witness is a personal choice, but it’s important to keep in mind that malpractice for an expert witness requires more than just making a mistake, a bad call, or an opinion later proven wrong. The threshold is crossed when the expert fails to exercise the level of care, skill, and diligence that a reasonably competent expert in the same field would use, and that failure causes harm, such as financial harm to the retaining party. This can include ignoring established methodology, offering opinions outside one’s expertise, misrepresenting qualifications, or acting with bias or reckless disregard for accuracy. Expert witness work is a rewarding direction for inspectors who are prepared for it. The catch is the meticulousness of the law. Miss a disclosure deadline or a procedural requirement and you can be washed out of legal work, or damage the reputation you were building. But an inspector who can put “expert witness” on a résumé has something most of the competition does not. WRE

OREP Members enjoy this software for FREE. For more information, visit OREP.org/inspectors. 26 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Member benefits provided as part of the OREP Risk Purchasing Group, Minimum Member fee of $60. | Calif. Lic. #0K99465

$100,000 CYBER COVERAGE For Only $125 Why Home Inspectors Need Cyber Coverage: Example Scenarios

1. Hacked Emails ($100K) - Scenario: Your email account is compromised and then sends malware to your contacts. Up to $100K Third-Party Liability coverage applies. 2. Payment Data Breach ($100K) - Scenario: Your Point of Sale (POS) Square® reader is compromised by malware, skimming clients’ credit card data. Coverage includes investigation, notifications, and damages. 3. Lost/Stolen Device ($100K) - Scenario: Did you know that if your laptop/phone with client data is stolen, you could be required by law to notify clients, provide credit monitoring, and you could face fines ($500–$5,000 per record)? This coverage pays for notification and legal costs.

Coverage Highlights • $100,000 Cyber/Technology Security Coverage • $100,000 Aggregate Privacy Fines/Penalties • $25,000 for Cyber Breach Forensic Expenses

Visit OREP.org/inspectors to Protect Your Business Calif. Lic. #0K99465

Weather in Home Inspection Reports by Greg Nelms, Nelms Inspections

Whether to include weather conditions in a home inspection report may weigh on the minds of some home inspectors. However, documenting weather conditions is often not optional—it is essential. In many cases, climate conditions during an inspection directly affect what can and cannot be evaluated, and failing to document them can lead to misunderstandings, disputes, or even complaints. The purpose of this article is to explain why weather conditions should be included in home inspection reports and to provide practical examples of report language inspectors may use. The sample statements provided are illustrative only and are not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for any requirements imposed by states or organizations that regulate home inspectors. Weather Limitations and Standards of Practice In regions that regularly experience snow, it is easy to envision a situation where a roof is snow-covered and cannot be fully inspected. Many states that regulate home inspectors require compliance with a Standard of Practice (SOP). Likewise, in areas without state regulation, inspectors often belong to professional associations that impose their own SOPs. These Standards of Practice typically require inspectors to: • Identify systems or components required for inspection • Disclose when those components could not be inspected • Explain the reason for the limitation To meet these requirements, simply stating “the roof could not be inspected at the time of inspection” is insufficient and potentially negligent. Such vague language may also expose the inspector to disciplinary action if a complaint is filed with a state regulatory body or professional association. A more appropriate statement would be: “Due to the accumulation of snow, the roof covering and upper areas of the structure could not be inspected at the time of the inspection.” Greg Nelms is the owner of Nelms Inspections and has been a home inspector for 35 years. He is also an instructor for the home inspection courses required by the state of New Jersey to obtain a home inspection license. Greg is a guest educational speaker for seminars across the country and is often asked specifically to teach on the subject of report writing. He can be reached at nelmsinspections@gmail.com.

28 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Figure 1: Weather conditions can affect what may be evaluated during an inspection (generated by AI)

Figure 2: A snow-covered roof prevents a visual inspection

Many modern report-writing systems include a designated area— often on the cover page—for weather conditions, such as: Weather: Rain, 75°F While this is helpful, the question remains: Is this enough? Tell the Client What to Do Inspectors should take the same approach with clients that parents take with children: Tell them exactly what to do. Anyone with children knows that if they are not repeatedly told to clean their room, take out the trash, water the plants, or mow the lawn, those tasks often do not get done—even when the children know they are responsible for them. The same principle applies to home inspection reports. Do not assume the client understands the implications of a weather-limited inspection. Spell it out clearly. An effective follow-up statement might include: “Re-inspection of the roof by a qualified roofing contractor is strongly recommended when weather conditions permit and prior to any contractual deadlines. Roof systems are critical components of the structure, and concealed material defects may be present.” Because weather conditions may prevent the purchaser from evaluating all areas of the home within the timeframe allowed by a real estate contract, inspectors may also include:

“Water stains were observed. A moisture meter indicated the area was ‘dry’ at the time of inspection. This does not confirm that the condition is inactive, only that it was not wet at the time inspected. Recent weather conditions had been dry, with no rainfall for several days.”

3

4 Figure 7: Moisture meter reading 12% moisture

5

6 Figures 3-6: This series of photos show the same house. First photo shows original date of inspection with snow limiting a visual evaluation of the roof. The subsequent photos were taken when weather permitted a re-inspection and showed many material defects (missing shingles, damaged vents, damaged flashing boots, proud and exposed nails, etc.)

“Consult with your attorney or client representative to ensure you are adequately protected.” Weather Context and Water Intrusion Another common scenario involves water stains observed in an attic. Example report statement: “A water stain was observed. A moisture meter indicated the area was ‘dry’ at the time of inspection. Weather conditions during the inspection included heavy rain.” In this case, the implication is that an active leak would likely register as ‘wet’ during a period of heavy rainfall. But what if it was not raining at the time of inspection? In that situation, the statement should be expanded:

Repeat the Rule: Tell Them What to Do Again—tell the client what action to take. This may include advising the client to consult the property owner regarding the source of the staining and any prior repairs. As with any water intrusion, hidden damage is always a possibility. The inspector may also recommend further evaluation: “Whether the staining is the result of an active roof leak cannot be determined within the scope and limitations of a home inspection and is excluded by the (applicable) Standards of Practice. A qualified roofing contractor should evaluate the entire roof system and address this condition prior to contractual limitations.” By including such language, the inspector: • Clearly communicates the limits of the inspection • Guides the client toward appropriate next steps • Reduces the risk of future complaints or liability Weather and Mechanical Systems Weather conditions also affect whether systems such as heat pumps or air-conditioning equipment can be tested. If these limitations are not clearly explained, clients may later believe a system was overlooked or missed entirely. Misunderstanding inspection limitations is one of the most common causes of client complaints. Properly documenting weather conditions—and their impact on the inspection—helps prevent these disputes. Conclusion Weather conditions should be documented not only on the cover page of an inspection report, but also within the narrative sections whenever weather affects observations or conclusions. Doing so can reassure clients, prompt them to take necessary action, and provide critical documentation if questions arise later. When in doubt, include the weather—and always tell the client what to do. WRE Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 29

New York Inspector Wins in Court (Thanks to the Contract) by Isaac Peck, Publisher

A Long Island home inspection company beat a structural defect lawsuit last October without a word of argument about the house. It was the second time they had won it.

Nassau County Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on July 6, 2021. The buyers appealed and waited four years for an answer. The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed. It found that the plaintiffs hadn’t followed the inspection agreement’s deadlines and procedures and that the “as‑is” contract and caveat emptor rules barred claims against the sellers and brokers (4 Colonial Dr., LLC v. Suburban Consultants, Ltd., Docket No. 2021- 06306, decided October 29, 2025). Courts don’t have it out for home inspectors, but that doesn’t mean inspectors are off the hook, or even legally safe. Even when a claim ultimately fails, the legal costs and time drain, not to mention the stress of defending it, can be extremely damaging. Steven Mazziotti, the inspector named personally in this case, won at the pleadings stage before anyone sat for a deposition. He was still a defendant in 2025. Many of those cases collapse under the weight of pretty clear legal standards, but a few still get through. That usually happens when the agreement is vague or nobody followed it. It’s not that courts expect perfect inspections. An inspection is a limited visual snapshot, not a warranty. For a homeowner to win a lawsuit against an inspector, they have to prove the inspector had a duty, missed an obvious and accessible defect, that the miss in question directly caused financial harm, and that the harm is measurable. One or more of those elements is often missing in cases, but inspectors still have to pay attorneys to get to the point of demonstrating this. Clear agreements remain the strongest protection. Courts routinely enforce a short claim window or a re-inspection right when the clause is written clearly and the inspector uses the same agreement every time. Courts also recognize that inspectors aren’t required to open walls, move furniture, or diagnose hidden systems. Claims about concealed wiring, underground piping, or defects buried behind finishes often don’t survive, but they cost money to defeat. And sometimes they don’t get dismissed. The Case Home‑purchase disputes are messy, and before too long, they can pull in everyone involved in a sale. 4 Colonial Dr., LLC v. Suburban Consultants, Ltd. is a good example of this. 30 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

After buying a home, the purchasers claimed to have discovered serious structural problems that they alleged should have been disclosed or detected. They sued the sellers, Susan and Thomas Laviano, the brokers (Joyce Styne and Berkshire Hathaway Laffey Real Estate), and the home inspection company (Suburban Consultants and inspector Steven Mazziotti). The claims were for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence. Suburban Consultants and Mazziotti, the home inspector defendants, moved to dismiss, relying on a visual inspection agreement (the VIA) signed by buyer Robert Jesberger that set a one‑year claim deadline and made the inspector’s right to re‑examine the property and offer a resolution a condition precedent to any claim. The defendant sellers, in turn, pointed to the “as‑is” contract stating the buyers were responsible for their own investigation. The brokers made similar arguments. In an unusual turn, it was the buyers who moved to compel arbitration, and they also asked for leave to amend their complaint. The trial court denied both motions and dismissed the complaint against every defendant. The buyers appealed. The appellate court’s reasoning turned on contract clarity, inspection‑agreement limits, and New York’s strict caveat emptor doctrine, the long‑standing “buyer beware” rule in real‑estate law that vests responsibility for investigation of a property onto the buyer rather than the seller. Courts tend to apply caveat emptor strictly, holding that unless the seller actively hides a defect, the buyer is expected to use ordinary intelligence, hire inspectors, and uncover issues through reasonable diligence. The buyers argued that questions about deadlines and compliance should have gone to an arbitrator. The court rejected that view. Under New York law, courts, not arbitrators, decide whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. Because the inspection agreement (the VIA) contained specific pre‑conditions to arbitration, the judge had to determine whether those conditions were met before sending anything to an arbitrator. That VIA required claims to be brought within one year of the inspection (which had not happened) and that the inspector be given the opportunity to re-examine the property and offer a resolution before any claim is filed (which also had not happened). The buyers’ lawsuit had proceeded without giving Suburban Consultants the contractually required opportunity

to revisit the home. The Second Department said so directly: the buyers’ “failure to satisfy the condition precedent of affording the Suburban Consultants defendants a right of examination and resolution prior to commencing this action required denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.” If the plaintiffs wanted to preserve their claims, they would have needed to follow the dispute‑resolution steps in their own inspection agreement, including prompt notification of the inspector and a request for a re‑inspection. The court similarly cleared the sellers and brokers, due to New York’s well-established precedent of measuring real‑estate disputes according to what was in the contract. Those “as‑is” clauses were explicit disclaimers, as was the statement that the buyers were relying on their own inspection, not on any representations by the sellers. Under New York’s merger doctrine, once the deed is delivered, any promises or warranties in the contract of sale disappear into the deed. That meant the buyers’ breach‑of‑contract claim against the sellers had nowhere to stand. To reach the sellers and brokers on fraud, the buyers would have needed to document any alleged concealment by the sellers or brokers. Defects were not enough. They needed to demonstrate conduct that actually blocked their ability to discover those defects. A buyer claiming active concealment, the court wrote, has to show that the seller “thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor.” The complaint did not allege that the sellers or brokers blocked the buyers’ efforts to inspect or learn about the property. And because the buyers had the means to discover the condition themselves, the fraud claims were barred by both caveat emptor and the contract’s disclaimers. The buyers’ proposed amended complaint fared no better. The Second Department held that it failed to cure any of the defects that got the original complaint dismissed. Courts Will Enforce Contracts Home inspectors talk a lot about the importance of a solid agreement, but 4 Colonial Drive shows just how seriously courts take those documents. New York judges, like so many other states, treat inspection contracts as binding roadmaps. When a dispute arises, the first question isn’t “What went wrong with the house?” but “Did the parties follow the contract they signed?” The buyers had argued that the inspector missed serious defects, but their inspection agreement required a specific sequence before any lawsuit. The client had to give notice, let the inspector come back, and give him a chance to fix it. Plaintiffs in this instance had skipped all of those steps. New York courts have repeatedly held that judges rather than arbitrators decide the threshold question of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists at all. That is what Matter of Mirzakandov v. Mazal U Bracha, LLC and Alam v. Uddin stand for, and the Second Department cited both. On the condition precedent itself the court leaned on Matter of Evan Louis

Realty Corp. v. Flagg Props. and Matter of Anagnostopoulos v. Union Turnpike Mgt. Corp., where arbitration was refused because the parties ignored their own contractual prerequisites. 4 Colonial Drive simply applied the same rule: because the buyers disregarded the dispute‑resolution process they had agreed to, the inspector’s contractual protections remained fully enforceable. Similarly, the one‑year claim window in the VIA was typical, since New York courts tend to uphold shortened contractual limitations periods when they’re clear and reasonable. In Oppedisano v. D’Agostino and Excel Group, Inc. v. NYCTA, claims were dismissed outright for missing contractual deadlines. The buyers in 4 Colonial Drive sued too late, and the court enforced the limitation exactly as written, consistent with New York’s highest court in Farage v. Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp., which reaffirmed that parties may agree to shorter timeframes than the statutory default. 4 Colonial Drive and the New York Market Inspecting in New York is demanding even before litigation enters the picture. Inspectors operate in one of the most competitive housing markets in the country, where buyers routinely waive inspections to win bidding wars. Every waived inspection is a job that doesn’t happen, and the inspectors who do get hired are under more pressure to justify what they charge. New York also imposes strict professional requirements for inspectors: 140 hours of approved training, including 40 hours of unpaid field work, or 100 supervised inspections in place of the coursework, plus a state or national exam and a license from the Department of State. The State also requires proof of general liability insurance at $150,000 per occurrence and $500,000 aggregate. That distinction matters more than it looks. General liability is not errors and omissions coverage. The claim Suburban Consultants spent four years defending was an E&O claim, and the policy New York actually mandates would not have paid a dollar toward it. New York’s housing stock is old and full of surprises, from legacy hazards like lead paint and asbestos to moisture intrusion and aging boiler systems. Deep technical knowledge is necessary for good inspections of the state’s numerous century‑old structures. On top of that, in New York City and the surrounding boroughs, inspectors face an entirely different set of obstacles: parking, co-op and condo access rules, and the occasional vacant property that raises safety concerns. None of that pressure shows up in a courtroom. The agreement does. Takeaways for Inspectors The takeaway is that inspection agreements only protect you if you follow them. They also have to be enforceable to begin with. A Mississippi court threw out an entire inspection page 32 8 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 31

7page 31 agreement this year, arbitration clause and all, in a case covered earlier in this issue. Treat pre‑suit procedures as risk controls. If your agreement gives you a right to re‑inspect or resolve a complaint, make those steps unmistakably clear. Spell out precisely how a client should notify you, how quickly you’ll respond, and what a re‑inspection looks like. Use short claim windows deliberately. A one‑year limitations period is enforceable when it’s reasonable and easy to understand. A good inspection agreement limits liability and sets expectations. Define what the inspection covers, what it doesn’t, how findings are communicated, and how disputes are handled. Clients rarely read fine print, so clarity is your best protection. Document your process. Courts look for consistency. Use the same agreement every time, keep records of notices and re‑inspection offers, and maintain a predictable workflow. When concerns arise, a well‑documented process is your strongest evidence that you acted responsibly. Many inspectors now use a digital log, which can be something as simple as a date‑ stamped PDF folder or a cloud‑based inspection CRM. A typical entry might read: “6/14/26: Client emailed concern about

32 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

“A good inspection agreement limits liability and sets expectations.”

moisture in basement. Responded within two hours. Scheduled re‑inspection for 6/17/26. Uploaded photos, notes, and resolution summary.” Even airtight agreements don’t stop claims from being filed, and defending a lawsuit (even a weak one) is expensive. A New York inspector carr ying only the general liability policy the State requires has no coverage for the kind of claim Suburban Consultants spent four years defending. OREP writes E&O and general liability for home inspectors that provide coverage to pay claims if you genuinely miss something, but it also includes defense costs on the weak claims that get filed anyway. Visit OREP.org/inspectors to learn more. While good insurance coverage doesn’t replace the need for a strong and detailed agreement, insurance is what keeps a bad claim from closing a business. Stay safe out there! WRE

Siding Stains: Why Do Houses Cry? by Reuben Saltzman, Structure Tech

Siding stains like those shown below are common in cold cli-

mates. This usually happens to homes with vinyl, hardboard, or wood siding. If you inspect in a northern state, you will see them. Telling the client where the water came from is the harder part.

Above is a close-up photo showing some ice turned brown from the tannins in the wood. Below are a couple of photos showing what stained siding looks like after all the ice is gone:

The stains on the siding above are the result of water inside the walls. When water runs through the wood wall sheathing, it picks up tannins in the wood and leaves dark stains on the siding. This water typically comes from two places: ice dams or condensation. Siding Stains From Ice Dams If the home experiences ice dams (Bit.ly/preventing-ice-dams) and the stains start at the soffits and run down the siding, they’re probably the result of water leaking through the roof. The illustration showing an Anatomy of an Ice Dam from The Ice Dam Company (https://icedamcompany.com/) shows the path of the water (See Figure 1 on page 35). Here’s an extreme example of what you might see on the side of the wall during the winter:

Reuben Saltzman is a second-generation home inspector with a passion for his work. He grew up remodeling homes and learning about carpentry since he was old enough to hold a hammer. He worked for Structure Tech since it was purchased in 1997 and is now the owner and CEO of the company. To connect with him, visit https://structuretech.com/.

34 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Figure 1: Anatomy of an Ice Dam

Siding Stains Caused by Condensation When you have siding stains on the gable end walls, it’s definitely not the result of ice dams (See Figure 4 on page 3 6).

temperature warms. That’s the long and short of it, but there are a number of factors that increase the likelihood of water stains appearing on siding.

When siding stains appear in random areas during the winter, it’s the result of moisture migrating through the walls in very cold weather, condensing as frost, then melting as the outdoor

Cold Weather The colder it is outside, the greater the potential for frost accumulation in the walls and attic. And the longer it stays cold, the more frost will accumulate (Bit.ly/attic-frost). Humid Air The more humid the air in the home is, the greater the potential for frost in the walls and attic. Start with the whole-house humidifier, if the home has one. Running one through a cold snap will do this by itself. A few other sources worth checking: • Bathroom exhaust fans with no timers, which usually means they are not running long enough. page 36 8 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 35

7page 35

“When the furnace blower runs, it pulls air into the home through the duct that runs to the exterior. This puts the home under positive pressure. All of that air coming in has to leak back out somewhere.”

• No whole-house ventilation strategy of any kind. To understand what that means, please read this excellent article by Dr. Allison Bailes: “Choosing a Whole House Ventilation Strategy” (Bit.ly/whole-house-ventilation).

Figure 2: Combustion Air Duct Connected to Return Plenum

• Bathrooms used for showering with no exhaust fan at all. • A kitchen hood fan that recirculates instead of exhausting to the exterior. • A crawl space with no vapor barrier. Crawl spaces with dirt floors are major contributors to indoor humidity.

Figure 4: Gable End Wall

36 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

Figure 3: Heat Recovery Ventilator

Combustion Air Duct Connected to the Furnace Return Plenum (aka – “Supply Only” Ventilation) In Allison Bailes’ article, this would be described as a “Supply Only” ventilation system for the home. Or more specifically, a Central Fan Integrated Supply (CFIS). When the furnace blower runs, it pulls air into the home through the duct that runs to the exterior (See Figure 2 on page 36). This puts the home under positive pressure. All of that air coming in has to leak back out somewhere. It leaks through a million little holes in the walls and ceilings. It leaks through outlets, switches, and countless other penetrations. This is how moist air gets into the walls. This is a bad way to ventilate houses in a cold climate.

stains have recently started showing up, it means something has changed, and the most likely cause is a drop in ventilation. Turning off or disabling an HRV (air exchanger) would be an extremely obvious example. A far more likely but less obvious cause of decreased ventilation in a home would be replacing an older 80 percent efficient furnace with a new high-efficiency, sealed-combustion furnace. That will cause a major unintended change in ventilation. Ask when the furnace was replaced.

Improperly Balanced HRV/ERV If a Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) or Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV) isn’t properly balanced, it can put the house under positive pressure. This increases the potential for air to leak into the wall cavities. Read about it online: Bit.ly/heat-recovery-ventilators (See Figure 3 on page 36). Unbalanced Ductwork Unbalanced HVAC ductwork can cause pressure problems. Leaky or excessive return openings in the basement can create negative pressure in the basement, while the upper levels are under positive pressure. One simple test to find out if the basement “sucks” is to position a door to the basement about 1” away from being closed, then turn on the furnace fan. If the door closes by itself, it’s an obvious sign that the ductwork is not properly balanced. There are more factors than these, but these are the most obvious. If a home has never had stains on the siding in the past but

Another common cause of decreased ventilation is having air sealing performed in the home, especially in the attic. Attic air leaks are also known as attic bypasses. Air sealing is required by law in Minnesota when adding attic insulation. Minnesota Department of Commerce: “Beware the Insulation Contractor Who Does Not Include Air Sealing.” When these air leaks are sealed, less air leaves the home, so less air enters. That means a decrease in ventilation, which can lead to new problems … such as stains on the siding. When you find fresh staining on a house that never had it, ask what work has been done recently. WRE

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 37

Bundling Services: Increasing Revenue and Client Satisfaction by Shawn Patterson, CenTex Inspection Services

Most home inspectors operate on a linear business model:

one inspection equals one fee. A standard residential inspection costs $X, a pool inspection costs $Y, and thermal imaging is an additional $Z. Clients select from a menu of services, and inspectors complete each separately. But this approach leaves money on the table and underserves clients. A better model bundles complementary services into extensive packages priced deliberately to increase perceived value, drive higher average ticket sizes, and improve operational efficiency.

Pricing it as a package at $50–$75 above the basic inspection price makes it feel like a tremendous value compared to the à la carte alternative. Most clients perceive this as a significant upgrade, though your cost is primarily time and minor equipment wear.

After building CenTex Inspection Services from a solo operation to a company handling everything from basic residential inspections to complex commercial properties with pools, thermal systems, and foundation assessments, I’ve learned that bundling works, both for client satisfaction and the bottom line.

The Thorough Bundle adds foundation elevation photography, crawl space evaluation (if applicable), and same-day detailed report. This targets clients who are serious buyers or those purchasing older homes. Price this at $10 0–$150 above standard to reflect the additional time investment.

The Bundling Principle The core insight is simple: most clients don’t actually want an à la carte menu; they want a total answer to one question: “Is this house in good condition?” Breaking the inspection into separate services—foundation evaluation, thermal imaging, pool inspection—fragments what should be a single answer and creates friction in the buying process.

The Specialty Bundle is for homes with pools, spas, or specialty systems. Include pool/spa inspection plus thermal imaging of the equipment plus standard home inspection. Bundled pricing makes sense here because clients with these features have already decided they want careful evaluation.

Bundling reverses this dynamic. Instead of clients deciding whether they can “afford” an extra $150 for thermal imaging, they’re presented with a whole package that answers their question completely. Psychological research on pricing confirms that bundled offerings feel like better value than the sum of their parts, even when the price is identical. Strategic Bundling Models The most effective bundles target natural client segmentation: The Standard Bundle includes home inspection plus thermal imaging plus WDI/termite inspection. The combination captures the three most common add-ons clients request anyway. Shawn Patterson is owner of CenTex Inspection Services in Austin, managing in-depth inspection operations across Central Texas including residential, commercial, and specialty services. His experience with bundled service offerings informs his approach to inspection business development and client service. Learn more at www.centexinspectionservices.com.

38 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

The Multi-Property Bundle targets investors or those buying multiple properties. Offer a 10–15 percent discount on the third and subsequent inspections when booked together. This creates predictable, concentrated work and builds client loyalty. Pricing Psychology The key to successful bundling is pricing strategy. Don’t simply add individual prices and offer a small discount. Instead, think with purpose about perceived value and margin. If your standard inspection is $400 and thermal imaging is $150, don’t bundle them at $50 0. Instead, price the bundle at $520–550. That accomplishes several things: First, you’re capturing incremental revenue that wouldn’t exist if the client simply booked both services separately; many clients who would balk at paying $150 extra for thermal imaging will accept it when it’s bundled into a slightly higher package price. Second, you’re rewarding client loyalty and booking simplicity. The bundle is easier to quote, schedule, and execute. Third, you’re positioning your business as premium. A “rigorous inspection package” at $540 sounds more professional and valuable than “inspection plus optional add-ons.”

Operational Efficiency Gains Beyond revenue, bundling improves operational efficiency in subtle but significant ways. When you know a client is getting thermal imaging, you schedule more efficiently. You’re not making a separate thermal imaging appointment; you’re capturing it as part of the single inspection visit. This eliminates scheduling friction and reduces travel time between appointments. Similarly, when WDI/termite inspection is bundled standard, you’re already checking the foundation and perimeter carefully. The termite evaluation becomes part of your normal inspection flow rather than an afterthought or separate visit. Bundled inspections also create predictable scope. You know exactly what you’re delivering, which means you can schedule appropriately and manage time effectively. A client might request thermal imaging as an upsell, delaying your schedule by an hour. A bundled service is planned and accounted for. Client Communication and Perception The language you use matters enormously in bundling strategy. Don’t present this as “services grouped together.” Present it as “well-rounded evaluation” or “complete assessment.”

Compare these two scripts: À la carte approach: “The inspection is $400. That includes the main house. We offer thermal imaging for $150 extra, WDI inspection for $100 extra, and foundation elevation photos for $50 extra.” Bundled approach: “Our thorough home evaluation is $54 0 and includes thermal imaging to identify hidden moisture and efficiency problems, complete WDI/termite evaluation, foundation assessment with elevation documentation, and detailed same-day reporting. This gives you a complete picture of the property’s condition.” The bundled approach feels like tremendous value. Clients understand they’re getting a thorough evaluation. They’re not nickel-and-dimed for add-ons. Managing Expectations and Scope Bundling requires clear communication about what’s included and what’s not. Your bundle descriptions should be specific. “Thermal imaging” is vague. “Thermal evaluation of HVAC efficiency, insulation integrity, and moisture patterns” is clear. page 40 8

120-DAY

Home Inspection Warranties Everyone Wins

YOUR CLIENTS RECEIVE • 24x7 Customer Service & Claims Support • No Age Restrictions on Covered Items • No Deductible or Copay on Service Call • No Limit on Mechanical Repairs

YOU BENEFIT FROM

• Not Losing Sleep/Complaints Handled by Pros • An Extra Line of Defense Against Claims • *FREE Marketing Collateral • *Buy 10 Warranties, Get 10 FREE

Purchase Today and Begin Using Right Away at OREP.org/Warranty or Call (888) 347-5273 CP™ 120-Day Warranty not available in California or Wisconsin. *Terms and Conditions apply. See website for details. Calif. Lic. #0K99465

Working RE Inspector Fall 2026 39

7page 39 Create simple one-page descriptions of your bundle options with bullet points on what’s included. That eliminates confusion and prevents scope creep: clients know what they’re getting, and you’re protected from requests for additional services. Real Estate Agent Relationships Agents appreciate bundled offerings because they’re easy to recommend. Instead of explaining why a client should add thermal imaging and WDI inspection to their home inspection, agents can simply recommend “the full inspection.” It’s a higher ticket price, but clients perceive it as better value. Additionally, bundled packages that include thermal imaging, detailed reporting, and WDI inspection position you (and by extension, the referring agent) as a premium professional. This benefits both you and agents in your referral network. Seasonal and Promotional Strategies Bundling also creates opportunities for strategic promotions. Rather than discounting individual services, you can offer promotional bundles during slow seasons. “Winter Special: Full inspection bundle (standard + thermal + WDI + foundation evaluation) normally $540, this month $499” drives traffic during slower months without devaluing your standard offering. Similarly, seasonal bundles make sense. Spring buyers might appreciate a “Seasonal Systems Package” including HVAC evalua-

“Bundling is more than a pricing strategy: it’s a business model improvement that benefits clients, simplifies your operations, and increases revenue. Clients get complete evaluation instead of fragmented services.” tion, thermal imaging, and pool/spa assessment (if applicable). These feel targeted and valuable rather than generic discounts. The Bottom Line Bundling is more than a pricing strategy: it’s a business model improvement that benefits clients, simplifies your operations, and increases revenue. Clients get complete evaluation instead of fragmented services. You get more predictable scheduling, higher average ticket size, and simplified client communication. Most importantly, bundling positions you as a detailed professional, not a basic service provider. That positioning justifies premium pricing and builds stronger client relationships. If you’re still operating on pure à la carte pricing, bundling is worth serious consideration. The operational simplicity and revenue increase often surprise inspectors who make the transition. WRE

The Liability Side of Bundling Every service you add to a bundle is a service you can be sued over.

When a client pays one company one fee for one package, that company owns the whole package in the eyes of the client, and usually in the eyes of a court. It does not matter who actually performed the work. OREP defended a Midwest home inspector on exactly this claim. He offered pest inspections alongside his regular work, charging $80 and paying a pest professional $50 to do it. Years later a homeowner gutted the walls during a remodel and found extensive ter mite damage concealed behind dr ywall. The claim landed on the home inspector, because he collected the fee and signed the agreement with the buyer. He had no written

40 Working RE Inspector Fall 2026

agreement with the pest professional and no copy of his insurance on file. The pest professional was never named in the suit. The agreement is what decides these cases. If you sub out any part of a bundle, get a certificate of insurance and a signed subcontractor agreement with an indemnification clause, so the party that made the mistake is the party that answers for it. Without one, tendering the claim to the subcontractor’s carrier is difficult and frequently not worth pursuing. OREP provides its insureds with a subcontractor agreement written for this situation. OREP’s home inspector policy also includes $250,000 of Termite, WDI, and WDO coverage. To lear n more, visit: OREP.org/inspectors. WRE

The Tale of Two Home Inspectors This is Bob. Bob has an insurance policy from a big

This is John. John is carrying an OREP

Bob’s policy:

John’s policy:

name in the industry, but his policy has serious gaps in coverage.

• Excludes mold and environmental claims— a top-3 claim against inspectors

policy built specifically for home inspectors.

• Includes $250,000 in mold coverage—one of the most common claims inspectors face

• Excludes pre-existing mechanical, electrical, and equipment defects unless Bob physically caused them—meaning a missed water heater, furnace, HVAC, or electrical defect isn’t covered.

• Includes $100,000 in radon coverage • Covers pre-existing defects—no exclusion for missed water heaters, furnaces, HVAC, or electrical

Bob is risking his financial future and his business by operating without coverage for key exposures he faces as an inspector.

John isn’t lying awake worrying whether his next claim is covered.

Don’t be like Bob! If you’re going to spend your hard-earned money on insurance, don’t settle for a policy that actively excludes a big chunk of the work that you do. It’s like throwing money away. More importantly, without proper coverage, you’re putting your business and your livelihood at significant risk. Even a frivolous claim can take $20,000$30,000 to defeat. Real claims can easily run $100,000 or more.

Serving Home Inspectors for over 24 Years, OREP offers: 1. Comprehensive Coverage Designed for Home Inspectors 2. FREE Attorney Response Letters Prepared and Sent on Your Behalf

You Catch Defects in Building Systems— We Catch Defects in Policy Language

Bob

John Shop OREP Today! OREP.org | (888) 347-5273

Calif. Lic. #0K99465