Response from SitePro Inspections
As a threshold matter, I note the complaint fails to make even a pretense of articulating a theory of liability under which SitePro could be liable for the damage that [member name removed] is claiming. Leaving that ellipsis aside for the moment, [member name removed] appears to believe some electrical switch at his home, based upon the comments of his insurance agent some ten months after the inspection constitutes negligence. Under the State of Florida, Dept of Business and Professional Regulations, SPO’s, a home inspector is not required to “identify concealed or latent defects”, See InterNACHI SOP §2.1 I.; see also ASHI SOP §13.1B.2 Thus, an inspector’s failure to discover concealed electrical defects would not be negligent, as a matter of law. SitePro is not a licensed State of Florida Electrican. Based upon [member name removed] complaint stating “all that would have been required is removing an electrical panel at the main electrical box.” Additionally, SOP § 3.7. Electrical, IV. The inspector is not required to: • insert any tool, probe or device into the main panelboard, sub-panels, distribution panelboards, or electrical fixtures. • operate electrical systems that are shut down. • remove panelboard cabinet covers or dead fronts. SitePro’ s inspection took place on November 20, 2013 and produced a comprehensive forty-four page report. The report does however note the following: "Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) outlets are recommended for installation at exterior, garage, bath rooms & kitchen outlets." Furthermore, photos taken of the electrical panel on the day of the inspection shows that it was operating properly. Moreover, [member name removed] spoke with the inspector and found no issues with the electrical, or any other concerns with the dwelling that were not mentioned in the report upon receipt thereof. Had there been any, it would have been noted by SitePro at the time of the inspection and/or the final walk through that he performed prior to his closing. Additionally, whatever complaint that [member name removed] may currently have with the property some ten months after the inspection, it is not clear beyond peradventure that SitePro bears no responsibility for them. And while I note [member name removed] desire that SitePro pay to replace the electrical wiring of the electrical panel, that sentiment is no longer apposite as there exist no congnizable grounds under which it could be required to do so. Moreover, even if SitePro had been negligent, which the incontrovertible facts conclusively establish that it was not, [member name removed] would not be entitled to recover anything remotely near what he is claiming. Under familiar principles of the Law of Damages, he would only be entitled to the cost having the issue repaired, depreciated by the fifty-two year age of the property. In other words, nothing. Furthermore, as [member name removed] is doubtless aware, SitePro conducted its inspection of the property pursuant to a four page Pre-inspection Agreement that provides in pertinent part, the following: "Client understands and agrees that any claim arising out of or related to any act of omission of company in connection with the inspection of the residential structure, as limited herein, shall be made in writing and reported to company within ten (10) business days of discovery." Not some ten months later...this is total non-sense to try and use a reporting agency to gain financially.