We purchased our home almost 2 years ago. It is a ranch built in 1950. Recently, some tile became loose in the shower. When I went to pull them off to replace them, I noticed the drywall underneath was "mushy". One thing led to another and I have pulled everything out down to the studs. Underneath, there was dampness and mold all the way to the ceiling along the entire wall except for above the window. (This is an outside wall and we live in a cold northern midewestern state). At first we thought that the loose tile leak had caused moisture to get into the wall, and because they had used regular dry wall and fiberglass insulation (packed very tightly), that the moisture just wicked up the wall. However, when we went into the attic to try to intall a fan, we noticed that the leak was probably coming from the point at which the roof meets the wall and that it had been happening for YEARS. The wood was so rotten out in that spot that we can see the siding from the inside. I have MANY questions, but my first one is: When the house inspector came before we purchased, he went up into the attic and did not catch this. Could all this happen in less than 2 years? If not, can he be liable for not catching this?

A lot of damage can occur in two years, but it sounds likely that the problem began before then. Liability is extremely difficult to prove, though, especially since the damage has worsened as time has past. I assume, since you're asking, that you don't have a 2-10 home buyer's insurance. If you do, though, that would be the place to start, and let the insurance company worry about any possible litigation.

First off let me say if I sound bitter do not take this personally. As this question has been asked a few times. I find it amazing that people always want someone else to pay for their problems. Also please understand that there are many inspectors who do good quality work and take issues like this personally. Such as myself. I do know there are inspectors that like other trades do not belong in this profession. So this following rant is for those of us who do a good quality inspection and over the years have taken the time to learn how a home is built and works.

As a home inspector that has performed close to ten-thousand inspections over the years I love it when a home owner feels that a home inspector is liable for their problems.
You must remember that a home inspector has a limited amount of time to evaluate a home. He or she is responsible for looking at hundreds if not thousands of potential issues throughout a house in only a few hours time.

There are many factors that would determine if an inspector would be liable. Such as weather during the time of the inspection. The ability of the inspector to view the suspect area. Temperatures in the attic. What distractions the inspector had while doing the inspection. The due diligence of the buyer to review the inspection report and act on suggestions that were made. Did the inspector have experience in determining if a past leak was still active? Was the attic filled with storage and limited the inspector’s visibility? Did the inspector find or miss a lot of other items. Or was it just this one.
What would have changed if he did find this problem? Would the seller address this issue, or perhaps handle it like any of the others that came up? I know many buyers say in court that they would not have bought the house if they “Knew” that the issue was there. (I do expert witness testimony and see this at almost every court case) We all know that is a bunch of hogwash. I have seen people buy homes that the inspection report did all it could have without telling the person not to buy the home but still move ahead and then end up going after the inspector later and winning awards from jury.

A home inspection is not going to catch every thing. Find every defect, and is not a warranty. If you wanted a warranty you could have purchased one from the agent’s office, or spent several thousand dollars on the inspection that would have provided such warranty. But I am sure you only spent around $300 for the structural plus extras. What do you expect?

I always find it amazing that new owners can remember a conversation that happened years prior but forget that they signed an agreement explaining that the inspection was basically a snap-shot in time and that things can and will change over time and that they agreed not to hold the inspector liable if things show up or other issues are found once the house becomes vacant or after you move in.

I know you do have recourse to go after this person. Even if it’s hard to prove. But with legal fees and what trial jury’s are awarding most likely you will prevail.
I know I got out of this ugly business a few years back because of people like you who think it’s our job to warranty your home. I had people come to me after eight years telling me it was my fault that they had leaks because I told them that the roof should last another 10 years. Do people ever hear of maintenance of a home? It took you two years to go into the attic after the inspection to find this issue. Why did you not ask the inspector to check this concern out? Did you ask him to re-visit the house after you found the problem in the attic? Or did you just call a contractor in to evaluate the attic. My bet the contractor who came to provide you with an estimate to fix this said, “Did you have a home inspection when you purchased this home? He should have found this and told you about it.” Of course the contractor is not a home inspector nor was he or she aware of what was or was not inspected or the conditions that were present during this inspection. A responsible contractor should keep their mouths shut and fix the problem not make more.

Were you not at the inspection? Did you not ask to go into the attic and at least view it so you can ask questions? Most likely you were to busy with the realtor while he or she was distracting you from this most valuable time. Did you do a pre-settlement walk through inspection? That is the time that everything is out of the house. If the attic was filled with garbage and it was noted on the report that there was limited visibility, you should have looked up there again to see if anything was uncovered. My bet is you did not.

Did you know that most people spend more time looking at an auto purchase then a home? Yet when the car breaks down you hardly ever hear of someone suing the mechanic, they just fix the issue and move on. But for some un-known reason when it comes to the house they sue everyone they can find that walked on the property.

I'm not going to comment on who should be liable to pay for what. God knows I've had some pretty outlandish reasons given to me on why I should pay for some things. I do also agree that a home inspector isn't going to find every single thing wrong with a house, nor should he/she be expected to. I also don't believe a home inspector should be digging around all the insulation in the attic for moisture. However if a whole wall of a bathroom is full of moisture and mold - I do think that falls into the "reasonable expectations" category of what to expect from a home inspection. I've walked through a few home inspections and every single one of them always carry a moisture meter. They slide them along a wall or floor and it detects if there is any moisture behind the surface.

Also, every single one of them always pay a lot of attention to moisture in the bathrooms, obviously because the bathroom is a high moisture area. Some measure more than others but every one of them measured both floor and walls in the bathroom for moisture below the surface. It, of course, makes sense to do this.

Again, I'm not going to comment on who should pay for what, or if the mold was there before or after the inspection - I do however believe that IF this moisture was readable with a moisture meter then the building inspector should have noted this on the report. It's also not the inspectors job to tell someone if they should or should not buy a house. It's their job to let the home owner know what deficiencies are in the house by way of the printed (written) report supplied to the homeowner.

On a side note, there should be much more regulatoin of the home inspection industry. Most states don't require any kind of licensing or training to become a home inspector. Any average joe can buy a moisture meter and a flashlight and go into business claiming to be a home inspector. While there are a lot of good, experienced inspectors out there - there's plenty of people who talk a good talk too.

I do agree with you Jay, In NJ and many other states they do have licence requirements. Many of the states however the license is just a cash cow for the state and have no teeth. But being in NJ ours is quite difficult to obtain. But I have the chance to see many reports from many companies because of the services my company provides and most of them do not provide to much information to their client.Many of the real estate agents like it that way. There is a saying in our industry "your only as good as your last inspection" For me I could care less what the agents want me to provide. Most of my clients come from other clients friends and family. Lawyers also call quite often.

As far as pulling up insulation etc. I agree but from what I gathered from the post was the the damage was able to be seen from a leak from the roof not hidden by insulation below, but could be wrong.

In NJ we are required to have moisture meters. Most do not use them and many of them that do, do not know how to use it properly. If I see something that looks related to a moisture issue. I could care less if its wet. I still test but just for my information to help find out if its current or old. And that can be hard if they have a leak in a bath and no longer use it. I call it out as a potential issue and suggest a professional look into the stain further or tell them to ask the owner to identify why this stain is present. I do look further for the cause to help identify it though.
In the case of this persons problem I believe nothing was said about stains inside the bathroom, which is common as many folks paint to hide issues before the inspection takes place. As a seasoned inspector, any time I find fresh paint the hair on my neck goes up and I look harder to find out why. A general overview of the house will tell me if they are just neat freaks or if the rest of the house is a pig pen, then they are trying to hide something.

I also agree with the who should pay for what. But in my industry I have seen to many folks blaming the other guy and not taking responsibility for their own actions. But because of our messed up legal system McDonalds comes to mind here, Jury awards often side with the consumer and could care less about the inspector as they have insurance so the jury feels its not really coming out of the pocket of the inspector.
I am sure you get my point.

Sometimes having liability insurance will get you sued when you otherwise wouldn't have been, and what's really delightful is when the insurance company defends you and then as soon as your deductible is spent, they settle. And then raise your premium, or drop you.

So, I guess the consensus here, doitmyselfgirl, is that you will get some sympathy here, if not much, and no help at all.

I guess we all understand that there are people doing home inspections who are inept, clueless, and unqualified. But they are far out-numbered by the knowledgable, experienced, caring people in the job who are human and can sometimes miss the obvious. Maybe it is 150 degrees in the attic and sweat is running in your eyes.

I think all of the people responding on this board have seen fraud, and ineptitude, and bribery, as have I, but the overwhelming chances are that there was some damage when your house was inspected, but it was honestly missed. We all understand that no home buyer is an expert on the many facets of home construction, but it is so extremely hard to look at an entire house for a couple of hours and find every thing that might possibly be wrong with it without tearing out every single wall.

I'm sure that if you posted your question on a lawyer's board, or an insurance company's board, you would get very different answers, but the people who respond here are construction professionals, and we tend to deal in realities. The reality is that you have a leak and need to fix it, along with the corresponding damage. Who is at fault or is to pay or can be blamed is at best a secondary or tertiary question. Deal with the problem and move on.

That's good advice in general, I think.

First I would like to respond to Home Care Club LLC:
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I am sorry if I offended you. You DO seem rather bitter. :-)
You should know that, first, I am not a litigious person. I have never sued anyone before in my life. I just don't believe that most of the time it is productive. And even IF the inspector was responsible, I seriously doubt I would do anything. I simply can't afford to. I would like to address some of your points:
Since the house is a Ranch style house, the attic is mostly a crawl space that extends the lenghth of the house. There is nothing up there but insulation and rafters. An adult can probably almost stand upright in the very middle, but mostly you have to crawl to see. Not only did I accompany my inspector to every place that he went, I video taped it. When it came to the attic, he crawled around up there while I stood on the ladder with my head in the attic as two people can not be up there at the same time. So I was not "busy with the realtor". Everything was out of the house already when the inspection took place. He did not catch this. From looking at the tape, I think it was because he was spending a lot of time looking at the apex of the attic and on inspecting this large fan we have up there. The problem is located on the side very near to where the roof meet the wall. Considering that you can see the siding from the inside because the wood is rotten away, it is pretty hard to miss. (And yes, I did not see it either. But I am not an expert in these things.) That is also why in my original question I asked if this kind of damage could happen in less than 2 years, admitting the possibility that there was nothing for the inspector to catch.
Our inspector pointed out a few minor things that needed fixed, which we had the owner repair before closing. I also understand that an inspection can not possibly catch everything. We have been diligent about maintaining our home since we moved in. I have not hired a contractor as we are fixing this ourselves, so your "bet" is wrong.

I am angry and offended that you made quite a few assumptions about my actions regarding this issue. I am not "you people" nor am I out to get you. I would have appreciated that you ask me more questions about my situation to clarify before going on the attack, even though you are understandable sensitive.

You need to understand something else. This is the very first home that I have purchased. I am new to the whole experience. The home inspector is in a position of trust. I followed him around, asked questions and took his word for everything he said and wrote up. He was supposed to be the expert and I assumed that when he told me that aside from the few issues he mentioned, that I had a sound home. So yes, I have not been in the attic for two years because up until now, I did not have a reason to be up there.
I am not going to sue him or anyone else. I am going to pay for it and get it fixed. I do still believe, however, that this is something that the home inspector should have caught.

I fully understand your frustration in this matter. And I also understand what the inspector was doing in the attic. I also understand that its your first real home and sometimes things can build up and feed off themselves real fast during a renovation project.

My first question to you would be. What caused the leak? Missing shingles? Chimney flashing perhaps? Was there a animal trying to enter? Or a large branch rubbing on the roof wall area? The second would be What was done to fix it. Is the leak still active? If not when was it fixed?

Depending upon the amount of leakage that is occurring or has occurred would depend on how fast the area would deteriorate. Also the kind of material that is decaying. Regular plywood with a very small seepage can take years to become severely damaged to a point of structural failure. While OSB (flake board) can be destroyed on only a few months with the same amount of dampness. If the leak is occurring because of a siding failure what caused this? Flashing failure, damage to wall?

Read your inspection report and see if anything was abnormal in this area on the outside that would trigger looking further on the inside. Seasoned inspectors would do so. Inspectors that have little or no experience often miss clues while looking around a home. Although that’s no excuse. If you filmed the inspection perhaps you caught something on tape on that end of the house?

Still another thought comes to mind. Perhaps he did see it in the attic, and because of the amount of damage he saw, was not concerned as the exterior siding in that area was still fastened properly and did not appear to be of a concern. This is not to say that he should not have put it in the report. But his personal experience as an inspector would dictate that.

What about the sellers disclosure statement? Did they have the house or roof re-done before or is everything the original material. Many contractors that do siding installs simply cover over damaged areas rather then fixing them. Perhaps this was a damaged area from a long time ago and was simply masked over by the seller? There are just to many questions to ask before I would say that the inspector was completely at fault.

Once again please do not take offence to what I wrote. This was not directed to you personally. I attempt to answer questions so other folks like yourself can understand what occurs and what types of problems can arise during their projects and home renovation issues.

If in deed you decided to sue someone what I said in my first response would be kids play if it got to court. I just wanted you to understand if you were going that route, you need to be prepared.
Also please understand. I have been in the trenches of the home industry for over 40 years in one capacity or another. I have heard both sides of many stories, and like I am sure you understand there usually not the same when you speak to both parties involved. Perhaps your not the type of person that feels everyone owes them when things go wrong. And based on your last response I do not think you are. But many folks are always looking for someone else to blame when things go wrong. And sometimes a swift kick can wake them up.
Anyway if you can answer some of the questions I asked perhaps I or someone else can get to the answer your looking for.

Other then that how’s the bath project coming along?

HCC Re: Licensing. When it comes to us as builders, I've been asked a couple times if being "Licensed" makes much difference as to the quality of work. I tell them not directly. The main reason why you would want someone who is licensed is because the license itself isn't easy to get - that in itself will weed out a lot of the fly-by-night contractors. As long as the state keeps it tough to get a license, these guys will not be working in a code enforced area. Same goes for home inspections, you say that NJ licensing is tough to get - I can bet that the overall quality of inspectors in NJ is far better than that in a state that doesn't have any requirements for home inspectors.

On a side note, here in Minnesota they passed a law stating that any juristictions who issues building permits has to report to the state if any unlicensed person or company pulls more than one building permit in one year. It's a step in the right direction I think. Now if we can get statewide code enforcement we'll be definitely on the right track...:-)