Professional Services Network, Arkansas, Legal

Effective September 16, 2006, Eighty (80) hours of education from training course approved by the board. All Home Inspectors must register with the Arkansas Home Inspector Registration Board. Applicants must pass the National Home Inspector Examination. Home Inspectors prohibited from making repairs on properties they have inspected within the last 12 months. Must have general liability insurance of at least $100,000. 14 Hours CEC per year. No more than 4 hours can be from a correspondence course. Up to 10 hours of CECs may be carried over to the following year.

State Statute

Act 1308 of 2003 http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/act1328.pdf

Rules and Regulations: http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/2005Rules.pdf

Summary of Changes Implemented as of September 16, 2005 http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/2005Summary.pdf

Causes of Action:  

    * negligent inspection
 
Defenses:

    * Defects latent, not detectable by reasonable inspection

  Arkansas home inspectors must register with the Arkansas State Board of Technical Registration. http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/act1328.pdf  Act 1308 fo 2003. Rules promulgated by the board are available on line at http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/2005Rules.pdf
 
            Home Inspector registration requires several things, including an exam, a certain course of study, payment of a fee, a good reputation for honesty, and general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $100,000.  Arkansas Home Inspector Registration Board, Rules and Regulations  http://www.ahib.org/pdfs/2005Rules.pdf Arizona currently requires the “National Home Inspector Exam,” administered by the Examination Board of Professional Home inspectors.
 
            Home inspector is defined by statute at § 17-52-303. Definitions             
 
Purpose and intent of Law

§ 17-52-302.

(a) It is the intent of the General Assembly in enacting this chapter:

(1) To assure that consumers of home inspection services can rely upon the competence of home inspectors as determined by educational and testing requirements;

(2) That, in ascertaining the degree of care that would be exercised by a reasonably prudent home inspector, the court shall consider the standards of practice and code of ethics which are in force at the time the inspection in question was conducted; and

(3) That this chapter apply to and govern all persons who practice home inspection in Arkansas whether they are registered under its provisions or not.

(b) The purpose of the board created under this subchapter shall be to administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter, promote a business atmosphere that will protect consumers of home inspection services, oversee an ongoing continuing program to develop high level skills in home inspectors, and encourage the presence of a viable home inspection industry in Arkansas.

Statute of Limitations:

§ 17-52-320. Limitations.

(a) Any cause of action to recover damages suffered by a consumer as a result of any act or omission of a home inspector relating to a home inspection report must be commenced within one (1) year from the date the report is completed.

(b) Disciplinary action taken against a home inspector by the board shall not, in and of itself, be the basis for civil or criminal action.
 
Dobie v. Rogers, 339 Ark. 242. 5 S.W.3d 30 (1999)

The Dobies commissioned the construction of the house in question in 1986. The couple, who were still married at the time, hired Don Mallory ("Mallory"), a general contractor, to build the house for them. During construction, the subcontractor who laid the foundation loaded fill dirt for the foundation from the pond located on the property. This accomplished two objectives in that it enlarged the pond, and it provided inexpensive dirt for the foundation. Construction on the house was completed in December, 1986, and the Dobies moved into the house at that time.

The Dobies lived in the house until 1991 when they listed it for sale. The purchasers  first saw the house in February, 1992, and ultimately made an offer on the house. Before the sale was final, the purchasers hired Kordsmeier, a house inspector, at the suggestion of the realtor. Kordsmeier inspected the house and met with the appellees to review his findings with them. Overall, Kordsmeier found the house to be in good condition. He did note that he saw an oddity in the laundry room in that Dobies had attached a vacuum cleaner hose to the washing machine's water-outlet hose, and ran it to the outside yard through the dryer vent, instead of the through the in-house plumbing to the septic system. Kordsmeier noted this on his report and advised the purchasers of this situation. The purchaser later asked the real-estate agent about this situation. In response, the agent apparently told her that by-passing the plumbing was not unusual. He said that people using septic tanks often did not run their wash water through the septic system in order to not overtax the system.

The sale of the house ultimately went through, and the purchasers moved in. Upon moving in, they ran their washing-machine outlet hose through the outlet drain to the septic system. Approximately one year later, they began experiencing problems with the plumbing in the house. The purchaser testified at trial that she first noticed water coming from under the house one day as she walked towards the back of the house. She testified that she crawled under the house and found that water was running from beneath it. She told her husband about her discovery, but he disregarded her observations.

Thereafter, in May of 1993, the purchasers operated several appliances simultaneously including the dishwasher and clothes washer, which used the same in-house plumbing outlet pipes. The purchaser testified that when she looked at the side of the house, she saw water running out of the bricks at approximately three or four places. She testified that there was water all over the yard, so she called a repairman to come to the house. Once the repairman arrived, he ran a water hose down the washing-machine drain and turned it on. They then saw water running through the bricks.

A jury returned a verdict in the amount of $125,250 against the sellers and the home inspector and held them jointly and severally liable for the damages.

The case is significant because even though the home inspector noted the peculiar system for discharging the gray water, he was still held liable.

BACK to the Professional Services Network, Arkansas.