Will Your Washington State Home Inspector Be Running Naked This Fall?

Since I am on the Washington State Home Inspector Licensing Board, which is fine-tuning the basic rules passed by the legislature last year, I will state facts here and not give my opinions.

When the new home inspector licensing law goes into effect in the fall of this year, it will, certainly, create some new restrictions and regulations within the industry. However, what many realtors and inspectors do not know is that certain language, or missing language, in the law will de-regulate parts of the industry. Some people who have contacted me, feel that what was left out of the law was a major loophole and that what will be lost is more significant than any public benefit that will be gained. 

First, let's look at how it has been. All SERIOUS inspectors have been licensed by the WSDA as structural pest inspectors. Without that license, there have been rules as to what you can and cannot do. It is like being in a straitjacket if you do not have that license. You had to pass a test to get the license and you had to have proof of financial responsibility. That can be established with a bond, E & O insurance, a combination of both or a dedicated bank account, with sufficient funds, that is accessible by the state if there is a judgment against you. That is how it is today -- a structural pest inspector must prove and maintain financial responsibility.

Under the new law, HOME INSPECTORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. An inspector with zero personal assets may operate as a licensed home inspector under the law. Now, those of us who plan to keep the structural pest inspector license will still be insured, bonded, etc. But the intent of some lobbying for the law was to allow uninsured inspectors to inspect homes without the need for these inspectors to be structural pest inspectors. Realtors who understand this have told me that this they think will put added responsibility on those people who refer inspectors. In this day and age of mega-lawsuits, do you as a real estate pro want to refer an inspector who might, in the event of a lawsuit, have a 1982 pickup as his sole asset? Or, even if the client picks the inspector, wouldn't you like to think the inspector is insured? Lawsuits can go pretty deep, until they find someone with money. If the inspector has nothing, where will they go next?

I have been contacted by many people about this. Some of them are realtors who feel that this change in the law actually makes their job harder. Instead of being able to assume that any licensed structural pest inspector is insured or bonded or otherwise financially sound, they will instead have to figure out if an inspector is, as they say, "going naked" and betting on never making a mistake or having problems. A problem free life is hard to come by. But I have had a few inspectors, happy with the new law, say they are looking forward to going naked and shedding all insurance fees. Other inspectors feel this is all a mistake. Opinions vary.

Another aspect of this issue is that inspectors, who will no longer require the structural pest inspector license, will also no longer be bound to the strict WSDA rules that presently go a long way in assuring that several areas of the home (crawl space) have a detailed inspection.

Those in the inspection industry, who wanted the WSDA license and insurance cut out of the home inspector equation won the licensing battle last year. Those inspectors, realtors, or lenders who feel that failure to require proof of financial responsibility is a hole in the new law need to talk to the legislature. They make the laws.

If you have a concern about this change in the law, you can voice your concerns to those groups in your industry who have clout with the legislature.

Steven L. Smith

Bellingham WA Home Inspections