BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE S
Charles M. Calderon, Chairman B
1995-96 Regular Session
2
5
8
SB 258 (O'Connell)
As amended on June 12, 1995
Hearing date: June 13, 1995
Business and Professions Code
GEH:cb
HOME INSPECTORS
STANDARD OF CARE
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY
HISTORY
Source: California Association of Realtors
Related Pending Legislation: AB 530 (Weggeland)
Prior Business and Professions Committee Action: 6-0
Prior Judiciary Committee Action:
This bill was heard on June 6th, but as a result of author's
amendments offered in committee, the bill was sent out to print
and back on file without a vote.
The author's amendments deleted the provision measuring the
standard of care by the standards of industry trade groups,
replacing it with intent language. The amendments also modified
the language of the prohibition against liability limitation
clauses, and made technical amendments suggested in the last
committee analysis.
(more)
KEY ISSUES
1. SHOULD A STANDARD OF CARE FOR HOME INSPECTORS BE FIXED IN
STATUTE?
A. IS THERE A NEED FOR LEGISLATION CREATING A STANDARD OF
CARE?
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 3
B. SHOULD THE STANDARD OF CARE BE THAT OF A "REASONABLY
PRUDENT HOME INSPECTOR?"
C. SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE EXPRESS ITS INTENT THAT COURTS
MAY CONSIDER STANDARDS SET BY PRIVATE HOME INSPECTOR
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS?
2. SHOULD STANDING TO BRING SUIT BASED ON A HOME INSPECTION REPORT
BE LIMITED TO PARTIES ORDERING OR PAYING FOR THE REPORT, AND TO
PARTIES WHO WERE NAMED OR INTENDED BENEFICIARIES OF THE REPORT?
3. SHOULD CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS WHICH WAIVE A HOME INSPECTOR'S
DUTY OF DUE CARE OR WHICH OTHERWISE UNREASONABLY LIMIT LIABILITY
BE DECLARED INVALID AS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY?
4. SHOULD A LIST OF PRACTICES BY HOME INSPECTORS WHICH RAISE
QUESTIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST BE PROHIBITED AS "UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES?"
5. SHOULD REGISTERED ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, OR LICENSED
ARCHITECTS ACTING PURSUANT TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION OR
LICENSE BE EXEMPTED FROM ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL?
6. SHOULD THIS BILL NOT AFFECT THE DUTY OF REALTORS TO DISCLOSE THE
CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide a number of statutory
protections for consumers who contract with home inspectors.
Home inspectors are persons who conduct physical examinations of
residential property in order to inform potential buyers about
whether there are any defects in the property. Some home inspectors
are licensed engineers, land surveyors, architects, etc., but most
are not.
Under existing law, Sections 1102 et. seq. of the Civil Code,
sellers of residential real property must make a number of listed
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 4
disclosures to prospective buyers about the condition of the
property. Under both these sections and Section 2079 of the Civil
Code, real estate agents and brokers have a duty to conduct a
reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property,
and to disclose all facts materially affecting the value or
desirability of the property.
Under Section 1102.4, sellers, brokers and agents cannot be held
liable for failing to disclose a defect of which they had no
personal knowledge if they deliver a report or opinion prepared by
a licensed engineer, land surveyor, geologist, structural pest
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 5
control operator, or other experts, dealing with matters within the
scope of that person's license or expertise.
Engineers, architects, land surveyors, general contractors and pest
control operators must obtain licenses or professional
registrations, and they must conduct their professional activities
in accordance with various statutes and regulations.
There are no licensure, certification, or registration requirements
for home inspectors; nor are there any other statutes or regulations
specifically governing the activities of home inspectors.
It is possible that certain questionable practices by a home
inspector could be actionable under Sections 17200, et. seq. of the
Business and Professions Code, which provide for actions for
injunctive relief and civil penalties against persons engaging in
acts of "unfair competition." Unfair competition includes any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair,
deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.
There is no reported California case law specifically addressing the
duties of home inspectors. There are reported cases from other
states which have held home inspectors liable for damages caused by
failure to identify defects. (See comment 1 below).
Proposed legislation
Standard of care: The bill defines "home inspection" as a
noninvasive, physical examination performed for a fee in connection
with a transfer of residential property with one to four units,
designed to identify "material defects" in the systems, structures
and components of the dwelling.
The bill provides that a defect is "material" if it significantly
affects the value, desirability, habitability, or safety of the
dwelling.
The bill defines a "home inspection report" as a written report
prepared for a fee and issued after a home inspection, which clearly
describes and identifies any material defects and recommendations
regarding conditions observed.
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 6
The bill provides that it is the duty of a home inspector who is not
a a licensed contractor, pest control operator, architect or
engineer to conduct a home inspection which identifies all the
material defects of the property which can be identified through an
inspection conducted with the degree of care that a reasonably
prudent home inspector would exercise. This does not preclude a
home inspector from explicitly excluding matters from the home
inspection report.
The bill states that it is the intent of the legislature that, in
ascertaining the degree of care, a court may consider the standards
of practice and code of ethics of the California Real Estate
Inspection Association or the American Society of Home Inspectors,
or other nationally recognized home inspection association.
Standing to sue: The bill provides that a legal action arising from
a home inspection report may be maintained only by the party
ordering the report, the party paying for the report, a party named
in the report as a beneficiary of the report, or an intended
beneficiary of the report.
Contractual limitations on liability: The bill declares that
contractual provisions that purport to waive the duty created by
this bill or otherwise unreasonably limit a home inspector's
liability, such as limiting liability to the cost of the report, are
contrary to public policy and invalid.
Specified unfair business practices: The bill provides that the
following practices by home inspectors are "unfair business
practices":
1. Performing or offering to perform for an additional fee repairs
to a structure which has been inspected by the inspector.
2. Inspecting any property in which the inspector has any financial
interest.
3. Offering an inducement to the owner of the inspected property
for the referral of business to the inspector.
4. Entering into a contract to perform an inspection if the
employment or the payment is contingent upon the results of the
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 7
inspection, preestablished findings, or the close of escrow.
Exemption for licensed engineers, architects, and land surveyors:
The bill exempts from all of its provisions registered engineers,
licensed land surveyors, and licensed architects acting pursuant to
their professional registration.
The bill provides that it does not allow home inspectors who are not
registered engineers to perform any analysis that would constitute
the practice of civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering, and
that it does not exempt a home inspector from the Professional
Engineers Act, the Contractors' State License Law, and from the laws
governing architects and structural pest control operators.
Effect on realtor disclosure obligations: The bill provides that it
does not affect the obligations of a real estate licensee or
transferor of real property to make the disclosures required by
Sections 1102 et. seq. of the Civil Code, or to conduct the
reasonably diligent inspection required by Section 2079 of the Civil
Code.
COMMENT
1. Fixing a statutory standard of care for home inspectors
a) Is there a need for a statutory standard of care?
The sponsors of this legislation, the California
Association of Realtors (CAR), point out that an
increasingly significant percentage of the 500,000 persons
who purchase existing homes each year are relying on reports
prepared by home inspectors.
CAR argues that, because no statutory standards exist
for home inspectors, incompetent or unscrupulous home
inspectors can cause prospective home buyers to make a
decision with economically disastrous consequences.
Last year, CAR sponsored AB 2780 (O'Connell), which
would have provided for state certification of home
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 8
inspectors by a new certification agency created by the
bill. That bill was defeated on the Senate Floor, and this
bill is an attempt to accomplish the same consumer
protection purpose without creating a new state
certification program.
The purpose of the provision in this bill which
establishes a statutory standard of care is to clarify that
home inspectors who negligently prepare a home inspection
report may be sued for damages arising from the negligent
preparation of that report.
Specifically, the bill intends to allow a suit against a
home inspector who negligently fails to identify in his or
her report a "material defect" -- a defect which
significantly affects the value, desirability, habitability
or safety of the dwelling, and which can be identified by a
noninvasive physical examination of the property's systems
and components.
Because of the case law cited below, it is not clear
that legislation is needed to ensure that victims of a
negligent home inspection can sue for damages.
There are no reported California cases addressing the
issue of whether a home inspector may be sued for damages
arising from a failure to identify material defects.
However, there are California cases allowing suits against
pest control inspectors for failure to identify infested
areas. Wice v. Schilling (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 735 (fraud);
Seelenfreund v. Terminix (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 133 (negligent
breach of oral contract).
There are many cases from other states in which suits
against home inspectors have been allowed on the basis of
common law causes of action which are recognized by
California courts.
For example, in April of this year, the Arkansas Supreme
Court upheld a constructive fraud action against a home
inspector who made negligent misrepresentations in a home
inspection report. Quinney v. Pittman (Ark. 1995) 895 S.W.2d
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 9
538. In February of this year, the West Virginia Supreme
Court upheld a jury verdict finding that a home inspector
was not negligent, but the court stated that a reasonable
jury could have found the home inspector to be negligent and
therefore responsible for damages. Eblin v. Coldwell Banker
(W.Va. 1995) 455 S.E.2d 774.
There are also cases on home inspector liability from
Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Indiana, Wisconsin, and
Maryland. Some of these cases hold home inspectors liable
for damages, and some of them state that home inspectors can
be held liable for damages for failure to disclose defects,
even though the court did not find the home inspector liable
in the particular case. These cases have based potential
liability on various common law causes of action, including
breach of contract, ordinary negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and fraud. See
Sorkin v. Schuck (1995) 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1281;
Mitchell v. Skubiak (1993) 618 N.E.2d 1013; Freeman v.
Yetter (1993) 1993 Del. Super. LEXIS 435; A.B.C. Home & Real
Estate Inspector v. Plummer, (Ind. App. 1986) 500 N.E.2d
1257; Edwards v. Lee (Wis. App. 1988) 437 N.W.2d 236; Baker
v. Haas (Md. App. 1993) 629 A.2d 1317.
Since the home inspection industry has blossomed only in
the last decade, most of these cases have been decided in
the last few years. There is no reason to believe that
California courts will not follow suit when such cases reach
them.
Although it does not appear necessary to statutorily
clarify that home inspectors owe a duty of care, it is
probably not harmful to do so. Placing the duty in statute
might produce more consistent case law interpretations than
would be the case without statutory guidance.
b) Should the standard of care be that of a reasonably
prudent home inspector?
In determining whether a defendant is negligent, courts
determine whether the person has exercised the degree of
care which would have been exercised by a reasonably prudent
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 10
person would under the same or similar circumstances. If
the defendant possesses special skills or knowledge, courts
look at the degree of care which would be exercised by a
reasonably prudent person possessing that
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 11
special skill or knowledge. See Witkin, 6 Summary of California
Law, Sec. 750, et. seq; and Prosser, Law of Torts, Sec. 32.
If the defendant is a professional, courts generally
apply a higher standard of care -- they determine if the
person has exercised the degree of care exercised by the
average member of that profession in good standing, although
courts have employed a myriad of different formulations of
both this standard, and the standard for non-professionals.
Courts generally hold that it is necessary to produce
evidence from expert witnesses to establish whether
particular conduct breached a professional standard of care.
See Witkin, supra, at Secs. 774 and 804; and Prosser, supra
at Sec. 32.
The sponsors of this measure have borrowed language from
the laws governing real estate licensees which impose on
such licensees a duty to exercise the degree of care that a
"reasonably prudent real estate licensee would exercise," as
measured by the statutory requirements for such licensees.
(Civil Code Section 2079.2.) This is essentially a
professional standard of care.
At least one court has rejected applying a professional
standard of care to home inspectors, and to requiring expert
testimony concerning the standard of care. In Blumm v.
Housemaster of America 1992 Conn. Super. LEXIS 703, the
court held that, because the home inspector defendant was
not a licensed professional, and had only undergone a
one-week home inspection training program, the professional
standard of care was inappropriate.
Instead, the court held that the appropriate standard of
care was that "of a reasonably prudent person in the
business of housing inspection identifying what the
defendants held themselves out as capable of identifying and
reporting on." The court held that the inspector had failed
to meet this standard of care.
It may not be appropriate for a professional standard of
care to be applied to unlicensed home inspectors.
Professional standards of care assume that there is a
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 12
well-established set of high standards to which members of
the profession hold themselves. Although the sponsors claim
that the standards of conduct set by the two trade
organizations referenced in the bill constitute such
professional standards, this has been disputed by the
engineering groups opposed to this bill. (See comment "1c"
below.)
Although professional standards of care are ordinarily
considered to be more demanding standards, if the profession
has not set high standards for itself, the professional
standard may be less rigorous than the general reasonably
prudent person standard. In other words, it is possible for
an entire profession to act negligently.
In the end, the difference between the various possible
formulations of the standard of care may be no more than
semantics.
c. Legislative intent that courts consider standards set by
home inspector trade groups
Prior to the latest set of amendments, the most
controversial provision of this bill was the one stating
that the reasonably prudent home inspector standard of care
shall be "measured by the degree of knowledge, education,
experience, and examination required to obtain qualification
as a home inspector" by either of two home inspector trade
association.
The latest amendments delete this provision, and instead
state in legislative intent language that courts may
consider the standards set by these trade organizations in
determining the standard of care.
The opponents of this bill have argued that these home
inspector industry groups have imposed "no educational
requirements or meaningful experience prerequisites for
receiving certification", and that the groups do not have
any disciplinary system.
Even without the intent language in this bill, courts
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 13
would probably consider these trade organization standards.
In Eblin, supra, the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a
directed verdict in favor of a home inspector because the
inspector had complied with ASHI standards. See also
Freeman, supra. However, in Edwards, supra, a Maryland
state appellate court found a home inspector to be negligent
despite the fact that he had conducted the inspection in
accordance with ASHI standards. In Blumm, supra, the court
seem to indicate that, because the defendant home inspector
was not a member of ASHI, his conduct should not be measured
by the ASHI standards.
Specific statutory reference to the ASHI and CREIA
standards, even in intent language, could be interpreted by
courts to require them to give special deference to these
standards, rather than merely considering them, which they
would do without any statute.
2. Limiting standing to intended beneficiaries of the report
Having established that home inspectors owe a legal duty to act
like reasonably prudent home inspectors, the bill next addresses
the question of to whom this duty is owed. Under the bill, this
duty would be owed only to parties ordering or paying for the
report, and to named or intended beneficiaries of the report.
This duty limitation was inserted into this bill at the request
of the home inspector organizations which support the bill. The
limitation is designed to address the following situation:
prospective buyer #1 hires a home inspector, and the report is
delivered to both prospective buyer #1 and the seller.
Prospective buyer #1 backs out of deal, and seller gives a copy
of report to prospective buyer #2. The home inspectors do not
want to be held liable to prospective buyer #2, because they
don't want people to rely on reports without paying for them.
To determine how this bill's duty limitation compares to
existing law, one must analyze each of the different causes of
action which could be brought against a home inspector, because
the limitation would apply to any action arising from a home
inspection report.
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 14
It is settled law that breach of contract actions may only be
brought by parties to the contract or by third parties who were
intended beneficiaries of the performance to be rendered under
the contract. See Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 776.
Likewise, a negligent misrepresentation, or constructive fraud,
action may be brought only by persons whom the defendant
intended to have rely upon the misrepresentation. See
Christiansen v. Roddy (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 780.
Intentional misrepresentation or fraud actions, however, can
generally be brought by any person who could have foreseeably
been injured by the fraudulent statement. See Bily v. Arthur
Young (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370; and Wice v, Schilling, supra.
In causes of action for ordinary negligence arising out of
breach contract, like the action created by this bill, the
traditional common law rule was that liability was limited to
parties to the contract. Even intended beneficiaries were
excluded. However, this "privity" rule, which had been eroding
since the beginning of the century, was overturned by the
California Supreme Court case of Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49
Cal.2d 647. The court held that:
"The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will
be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of
policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among
which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to
affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the
degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the
closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and
the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's
conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm." Id. at p.
650.
Under Biankanja, whether the plaintiff is an intended
beneficiary of the contract is only one of the factors to be
considered in determining if the plaintiff is owed a duty by the
defendant. For example, in M. Miller, Co. v. Dames & Moore
(1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 305, the court held that, under the
Biankanja factors, an engineering firm which had contracted with
a sanitation district to prepare a soils report owed a duty to a
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 15
contractor which bid on the district's project.
Long after the privity rule was abandoned by California and
other states, it remained the rule in one special type of cases:
for certified public accountants conducting financial audit
reports. In Bily v. Arthur Young, supra, the California Supreme
Court reaffirmed that there are special duty limitations for
such cases, and held that there are three different rules,
depending upon the cause of action. If the cause of action is
ordinary negligence, the accountant can only be held liable to
parties to the contract. If the cause of action is negligent
misrepresentation, the accountant can only be held liable to
specifically intended beneficiaries of the contract. If the
cause of action is for intentional fraud, the accountant may be
held liable to any foreseeable plaintiff.
In parts of the Bily opinion, the court uses general language
which implies that these special rules would apply to any
allegation of negligence or negligent misrepresentation related
to the preparation of a report by a professional. However, the
court's stated reasons for creating special limitations are
specific to financial audits. The court was concerned about the
large number of potential investors who could rely upon an
audit, and the resulting disproportionate liability of the
accountant. The court also cited that sophistication of
investors who rely on audits.
These justifications for a specially limited duty do not appear
to apply to home inspection reports: it is not likely that
there will be more than a few prospective purchasers who would
rely on a report which was not intended for their benefit.
Likewise, a negligently prepared home inspection report does not
have consequences like affecting multi-million dollar investment
decisions. In addition, prospective home buyers are not
analogous to sophisticated investors who can be assumed to be
able to protect themselves.
In limiting intentional fraud actions to plaintiffs who were
intended beneficiaries of the contract, this bill would be
unprecedented. In limiting negligence actions to intended
beneficiaries, this bill would be applying a rule which was
created for a special situation involving potential crushing
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 16
liability to a situation in which such concerns do not seem to
be applicable.
IS THIS BILL'S DUTY LIMITATION APPROPRIATE?
3. Restricting contractual limitations on liability
a) Rationale for restricting liability limitation clauses
According to the sponsors, one of the most widespread
abuses in the home inspection industry is the insertion into
contracts of a clause limiting the liability of the
inspector to the price paid for the home inspection report.
Therefore, this bill declares that contractual
provisions that purport to waive the duty created by this
bill or that otherwise unreasonably limit a home inspector's
liability, such as limiting liability to the cost of the
report, are contrary to public policy and invalid.
In Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963)
60 Cal.2d 92, the California Supreme Court enumerated
various factors which must be considered in determining
whether a liability limitation provision is valid. These
factors are a combination of the factors which have been
employed traditionally under the doctrines of
unconscionability and public policy.
In Baker v. Haas, supra, a Maryland state appeals court
cited Tunkl, and applied its factors to uphold a clause in a
home inspection contract which limited the liability of the
home inspector to the cost of the report. Given the Baker
case, it is possible that California courts also would
uphold a home inspector's liability limitation clause,
unless the legislature expressly prohibits such clauses in
this or similar legislation.
Last year, the legislature declared in uncodified intent
language that the duty of real estate brokers and agents to
disclose the results of their reasonably diligent inspection
cannot be waived by contract. This language expressed
disapproval of a contrary holding in Loughrin v. Superior
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 17
Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1188. This year, AB 530
(Weggeland) seeks to codify this intent language.
If the liability of real estate agents to conduct a
reasonably diligent inspection cannot be waived by contract,
it seems logical that the closely related duty of home
inspectors which would be created by this bill should also
not be waived by contract.
b) Effect of amendments
In the previous version, the bill only prohibited
limiting liability to the cost of the report. However, the
author indicated at the last committee hearing that this
previous language provided less restriction against
liability limitation clauses than he intended. As a result,
the author has amended the bill to specify that the duty of
care cannot be waived, and that other unreasonable
limitations of liability, such as limiting liability to the
cost of the report, are invalid.
The bill as amended is more restrictive than the
previous version, but it does grant courts considerable
discretion in reviewing liability limitation clauses. The
bill grants courts less discretion than they would have
under present law, since it clearly provides statutory
guidance that certain types of waivers are invalid, and
there is no such guidance in present law. However, the
committee may wish to consider if it is ever "reasonable" to
limit liability, and whether a prohibition which draws a
brighter line would be more appropriate.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW "REASONABLE" LIMITATIONS ON
LIABILITY?
4. Unfair business practices
According to the sponsors, it is necessary to prohibit the
"unfair business practices" listed in this bill in order to
assure prospective buyers that "the inspection will be untainted
by an inspector's interest in kickbacks from agents, financial
interests in the property, or repair work generated by the
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 18
inspection."
There does not appear to be any controversy about this
provision.
5. Exempting engineers, architects, and land surveyors
The standard of care established by this bill applies only to
home inspectors who are not also licensed general contractors,
structural pest control operators, architects, or engineers.
This makes sense, because such licensed inspectors would all be
subject to their own professional standards of care, which would
probably be more demanding than that applicable to home
inspectors generally.
However, this bill exempts engineers, architects, and land
surveyors who are acting pursuant to their professional
registration or license from all of the other provisions of the
bill as well.
According to the staff of the Senate Business and Professions
Committee, this exemption was important to the members of that
committee, who believe that these licensed professionals should
be governed only by the applicable provisions of their
professional licensing statutes, and by their licensing bodies.
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 19
The Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land
Surveyors shares this concern about any additional standards
being placed on their licensees. However, staff from that board
acknowledge that this bill's prohibitions against listed unfair
business practices and against liability limitation clauses do
not duplicate any standards enforced by the Board.
Although this bill is opposed by two small engineering
organizations, the major engineering organization in the state,
CELSOC, is neutral on the bill. At the June 6th hearing, CELSOC
indicated that it would oppose the bill if this engineering
exemption is removed.
There is some question about whether licensed engineers, etc.
are "acting pursuant to their license" when they conduct a home
inspection. Woodframed dwellings with less than four units are
statutorily exempt from the engineering statutes, and, under
this bill, home inspectors could not perform activities which,
under the relevant statutes, must be performed by licensed
engineers, etc.
Therefore, when an engineer performs the same type of home
inspection a nonengineer may perform, he or she is probably not
acting as an engineer, and therefore would not be exempt from
the unfair business practice and liability limitation
prohibitions in this bill.
However, according to the staff of the Board of Registration, if
engineers represent themselves to be engineers when conducting
such a home inspection, they would be acting pursuant to their
registration. In other words, if an engineer signed a home
inspection report, "John Smith, Professional Engineer," the
engineer could limit his liability to the cost of the report,
and could receive a kickback from the agent.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS TO
MANIPULATE WHETHER THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS IN THIS
BILL?
6. Relationship of bill to real estate disclosure requirements
Originally, this bill was part of a one-two punch by CAR to
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 20
allow real estate agents and brokers to be relieved of their
duties to investigate defects by providing a report prepared by
a home inspector.
The original version of AB 530 (Weggeland), which was
double-joined to this bill, would have specified that home
inspectors are "experts" for the purposes of the "substitute
disclosure" provisions of Section 1102.4 of the Civil Code.
That provision was removed from AB 530 by the Assembly Judiciary
Committee. This would have allowed realtors to shift some of
their disclosure liability to home inspectors by
(more)
SB 258 (O'Connell)
Page 21
requiring home inspections in all of their transactions. This is a
much less expensive way of shifting liability than hiring a licensed
engineer, etc.
It is possible that, under present law, a home inspector who was
not a licensed engineer, etc. could be considered by a court to
be an expert whose report could be used by a realtor to
substitute for the realtors' own investigation. It is likely,
however, that most unlicensed home inspectors would not be
considered such an expert.
This bill is drafted so that it will not affect whether or not
certain home inspectors could be considered experts for these
purposes. However, given the history with AB 530, it seems
clear that, if this bill passes, legislation will be introduced
in subsequent years to make home inspectors experts for the
purposes of the substitute disclosure law. The argument would
be that the consumer protections and standard of care created by
this bill provide the safeguards necessary to allow home
inspectors to be considered to be experts.
Support: California Association of Realtors
California Real Estate Inspection Association
Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office
Fennema Engineers, Inc.
Opposition: Peninsula Chapter, California Society of Professional
Engineers
National Academy of Building Inspection Engineers
Department of Real Estate
Prior Legislation: AB 2780 (O'Connell)
**********
(more)