Regarding SB 627

I am a licensed home inspector in Virginia, with 24 years experience in the building trades and another 22 years experience as a home inspector.

In my opinion, carrying errors and omissions insurance and general liability insurance is essential to protect myself and my clients from catastrophic loss. Many (most, or all) E&O carriers require a limit of liability in the inspection agreement to limit their exposure.

The limit of liability that all home inspectors include in their contracts allows us to offer inspections at an affordable cost. Prohibiting any limitation of liability will certainly increase the cost of home inspections, and it will probably increase the cost of an inspection beyond the reach of many consumers. It will undoubtedly limit the number of people who are willing to offer the service, because who can afford to be exposed to $500k of liability while charging only $600 for an inspection?

An opinion posted on this site that home inspectors are more interested in preserving the real estate transaction than providing accurate and complete inspection reports to their clients is about 25 years behind the times, and it ignores the fact that a Virginia inspector who fails to provide the required service puts his license and ability to earn a living at risk. Licensed inspectors have a powerful incentive to do the job properly, and they have no protection if they fail to do so.

As it stands now, a consumer has the option to sign my contract that includes a limit of liability, or to hire someone else. As it stands now, any licensed inspector can gain a competitive advantage over me by offering the service with no limit of liability (if he can afford to do so). SB 627 would eliminate these options and would replace them with home inspections that are beyond the reach of the very consumers who need them the most.

Bob Peek

Virginia license 3380000108