Is the home inspector responsible for not catching severe water damage in our home?

Question

We bought a home in January of this year and just started to redo our bathroom and master bedroom and when we pulled off the sheet rock we found major water damage. This has been leaking for probably years. The insulation and plywood were disintegrated and the 2 x 4's are spongy. The entire back of the house is probably like this. We had a home inspection. Is there anyone who can be held responsible for this besides our bad luck!!!!

Answer 1

Generally a home inspection contract will include language that limits or excludes liability for hidden problems.  Since you have been in the house since January and are just now finding the problem, pretty safe to say that this problem was hidden fairly well.

A home inspection is still a good idea as a good inspector will catch many things that the average home buyer may overlook.  

You may not be out in the cold completely, if the seller knew about this damage and did not disclose it on the proper forms, you probably have a claim.  Someone covered all of this up, obviously they didn't tell you.  Time may be an issue, you should contact a local attorney as soon as possible.  Real estate laws vary from state to state, so you will need someone in your state to inform you of your specific rights.

Of course, if this was a foreclosure or similar situation, the seller may not have known of the issue in which case you are likely on your own.

Edit - The original question indicates that the only signs of damage were concealed in the wall.  At least that would be my take on it.  Now, if there are other visible signs of damage, the story may be a bit different.

Most of the inspection process will be a visual check of the home.  Visual does not pick up on "spongy" spots in the wall.  A good inspector will get touchy feely in a few places, but certainly not every wall unless there are some signs to indicate it might be a problem.  This really comes down to a judgement call on the part of the inspector, unless there are some obvious visual signs there probably is not any liability.

If there are obvious signs, time is not on your side here.  In order to prevail in a claim, you would have to prove that those signs were there when the home was inspected.  Not an easy task unless you have a time machine.

Find a lawyer, take your purchase documents and your inspection contract and report just in case, but don't expect to get much out of the inspector on this one.

Answer 2

USA    You are looking to blame somebody.  The inspector inspected what could be seen, nothing more.  It is not up to the inspector to push and prod the walls.

However, the damage you stated does take years to develop.  The seller should have responsibility for not telling you.

Get a lawyer, NOW.  DO NOT WAIT.  The lawyer will get the inspector involved and try to assign responsibility.  But, for you, GET A LAWYER NOW.  The longer you wait, the further away slips the possibility of recompense.

Answer 3

Sorry but I agree with be. If you are just now finding the damage it will be difficult to prove when the leakage started. The next step is to call more experts in for their opinions that will be acceptable in court if you go that way. It is a hard thing to prove prior damage like this though. For every expert you provide the defense will provide someone to testify that the damage 'could' have occurred since you have owned the building. If you have any records or pictures or friends that could testify on your behalf it will strengthen your case. Neighbors that noticed any unusual maintenance on the home prior to the last owner selling? You might read your insurance policy and decide if you can make a claim from some unforeseen accident. Like an errant bullet shot into the plumbing? Really reaching here but sorry to hear about what is happening.

Answer 4

No, the inspector is not responsible/liable for the damage.  The inspector gives you his/her opinion of the home but some things are not obvious when the inspection is performed.  He/she just missed the evidence of damage and if it was detected at the time of inspection, the inspector is obligated to tell you about it.  

The person performing the inspection was not thorough enough and probably not experienced enough in the field to go solo.  He's still not liable.  It's your tough luck....should have looked deeper into his credentials.  Sorry.

Answer 5

Most of the inspection reports I see limit the inspectors liability to the amount charged for the report.  I think the inspectors "out" will be that the damage was behind a wall.  Most reports also contain language that says they do not perform destructive testing.