Back Talk

In St. Louis, there is a lot of new construction, but also much in the way of existing home sales. Surely Crosslin is not suggesting that the only way to ensure no litigation with regard to WDOs is to do a complete treatment on each inspection.

Additionally, Crosslin brings up the value of the inspection to the homeowner, mortgage company and other interested parties. I also note with great interest the horror story accounts he relates. Perhaps this is due, in part, to poor training by the inspector and/or the company. However, I am aware of many companies here in St. Louis that charge $25 to $40 per inspection. Granted, these firms do a lot of inspections for the local real estate firms here, and I guess they figure in a "quantity discount."

However, I cannot understand how you can inspect a home properly (not hampered by time constraints), pay all your overhead costs (gasoline, insurance, etc.), take the time to complete all the paperwork involved, do the invoicing — all for that small amount — and still say you are complete and thorough in your inspection. Perhaps the litigation Crosslin presented occurred because the company gave a cheap price and did an unprofessional inspection.

I am not stating the pest control firms who do things for a cheap price are without blame — far from it. But I do believe that the real estate firms, and the purchasers and/or sellers, share some of the blame for the poor inspections. If all they are interested in is the lowest cost just to satisfy the mortgage regulations, perhaps caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") is appropriate.

David Robinette

Vice President

Master Pest & Termite Controls Inc.

St. Louis, Mo.

I didn’t intend for my story to say that every inspection should be accompanied by a treatment. I do however believe that far too many inspections are not thorough enough and many that I have attended would qualify for treatment pursuant to ASPCRO guidelines. For some reason, many PCOs appear to have forgotten that an inspection is for the homeowner regarding the actual status or condition of the property and not to satisfy a real estate agent for a closing requirement.

All too often the real estate community is part of the problem. Several suits our company has been involved with have the real estate agent as a party — and for good reason.

I do have a number of horror stories as Robinette noted. For example, an inspection for $40 involved the PCO leaving his truck running while he walked around the outside of the house. It was a volume-discounted program he had with a real estate agent regarding a property that was set to close that afternoon. What do you think this PCO’s future insurance premiums will be since his carrier had to buy a house for $231,000 due to this "negligent" act?

I have also defended several large "independents" and large corporations that charge for their inspections and have similar situations arise. Unfortunately I can’t state with accuracy that these have occurred only with high-volume, low-dollar inspections. I have a case in Florida with a company that involves a $1 million plus home that has been condemned and declared an imminent collapse situation where the inspector, who had the house under contract for four years, "missed" damage in every external wall in the house and a series of mud tubes in the attic. He charged more than $135 for the inspection and spent less than 30 minutes at the house with the real estate agent and seller present.

Problems run across the board. While I agree that "caveat emptor" should apply, not all states have agreed and it is hard for a legislature to hold an untrained consumer liable since licensed PCOs are performing the tasks. It doesn’t matter the price since PCOs set it. If they do the inspection, it should be correctly done. I don’t think Robinette and I have opposing views. PCOs should charge proper amounts to do a proper job, and they should do the job as best they can.

Greg Crosslin

Crosslin, Slaten & O’Connor

Montgomery, Ala.

Readers with comments are invited to write to PCT Letters, 4012 Bridge Ave., Cleveland OH 44113. Letters also can be faxed to 216/961-0364, or e-mailed to jdorsch@pctonline.com. Letters may be edited for space or clarity.