Midstate Home Inspection

Home inspector failed to identify vermiculite/asbestos insulation, a choice on the inspection form, despite dozens of original bags in plain view. In [redacted] 2011, the Midstate Home Inspector contracted to inspect this home checked off fiberglass, cellulose, and rock wool insulation on the inspection form checklist, but not vermiculite despite there being dozens of original bags in plain view, some within inches of the attic access. There was a specific check box in the inspection form for this item that was left blank. Vermiculite is treated the same as asbestos by law and I am faced with a [redacted] bill to abate the insulation in the attic to allow work to repair ice dam damage to ceilings and walls to begin after this nasty winter. I may eventually realize a reimbursement of up to [redacted] dollars from the [redacted] Fund, set up by the original vendor, [redacted] to assist customers facing this problem, however I must pay the full abatement bill of [redacted] first. I will have to take out a loan to finance this abatement and pay for the inspector's oversight for years to come. In the interest of problem solving, I approached the Midstate Home Inspector by phone on [redacted] where he stated his inspection is not required to identify the insulation despite his inspection form boxes implying that his company inspection would cover this. The inspector was not moved by the fact that the actual empty bags of vermiculite were in plain sight. He suggested that not all vermiculite was asbestos and maintained that some insulation contractors would remove the vermiculite and that I needed to look around for a vendor that would essentially break the law. He was adamant that I was going overboard by abating the vermiculite, that the law does not require it to be treated as asbestos tainted, and that there are many contractors willing to do the work without the expense of a proper abatement. I am appalled by this home inspector's apparent lack of knowledge of the asbestos related hazard in the first place, his unwillingness to acknowledge his responsibility to inspect the home per his company form (which includes vermiculite as a insulation check box), his malfeasance as a home inspector to warn home buyers of this liability, and finally, his complete disregard of ethics in suggesting I look for a insulation contractor that will bypass the law and place myself, my family, and others at risk by inappropriate removal and disposal of asbestos tainted insulation that he failed to identify despite the hazard being clearly identified in plain view from the attic access.Desired SettlementI am seeking compensation for actual damages due to malfeasance. Specifically, that portion of the abatement costs not covered by insurance for the actual damaged area and the likely reimbursement from the [redacted] for up to [redacted] I expect the compensation from Midstate Home Inspections to be on the order of [redacted] I will seek legal council as the contractor is not agreeable to resolving this issue without being forced to.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted], [redacted]Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXXContact Email: [redacted]In response to the complaint: I would like to state, as owner of Midstate Home Inspections, that all inspections are performed in a manner consistent with the standards of the State of [redacted] This is a visual inspection of readily accessible areas of conditions existing at the time of the inspection only, as stated on the contract that the client reads and signs before the inspection. Also on that contract it states that we do not intend to address the possible presence or danger from asbestos or other airborne related illnesses. The contract states that the client is urged to contact a reputable specialist if information identification or testing of asbestos is desired. Also the client received a copy of the [redacted] with the report. In the state regulations [redacted] it states: Inspector shall not be required to Observe and Report on the following, the type(s) and/or amounts of insulation and/or its material make-up. Concealed insulation and vapor rders.The inspector shall report on the existence of exposed insulation in unfinished spaces (attic). This information is in Section 9 of the [redacted]As for types of insulation on the inspection report, I do that as a courtesy if it is readily observable. These insulation bags were not in view at the time of the inspection. If they were, the box would have been checked off, as the other types were checked off. (This house's insulation has been updated. The boxes I checked off were the more recent insulation that were readily observable at the time of the inspection).Home inspectors are generalists. We are not scientists that figure out what is hazardous. As stated in the contract, they had the option of doing further inspections for contaminants. Not all vermiculite is asbestos borne. It would have to be tested by a reliable lab and as far as I know the home owner has not had that testing done. There are thousands of homes that have vermiculite insulation, as it was a common insulation in the past.As for the complainants, when I talked to them on the phone, they were belligerent, telling me that I could not read and insulting my character, so I ended the conversation with them. I never told them to do anything illegal. I told them they should get it tested. I have been doing home inspections since 1991 and have completed over 3000 inspections and have never had this sort of issue/complaint. This inspection was done over 4 years ago. At that time there would have been no discussion of removing vermiculite insulation. As you will see from the linked recommendations from the EPA in 2015 they still don't recommend disturbing it, unless necessary. We could not predict their ice dam problems back in 2011.I am attaching a link issued by [redacted] in [redacted] of 2015. This gives important information about Vermiculite.[redacted]Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)The response from the business states "As for types of insulation on the inspection report, I do that as a courtesy if it is readily observable. These insulation bags were not in view at the time of the inspection. If they were, the box would have been checked off, as the other types were checked off." This is completely false. Some clearly labeled bags were within inches of the attic access, and others were within plain view from that same access without entering the attic at all by simply looking in any direction. I have a series of photographs from that very access that show numbers of readily identifiable bags. I am submitting the photos in a claim to attempt to recoup some funds I expended on abatement from the [redacted] The business owner did in fact suggest over the phone that many insulation contractors would deal with vermiculite removal without regard to [redacted] rules to the contrary that require it be abated as if contaminated by asbestos. He stated that the [redacted] inspector was being a stickler for the rules, and implied that we could find many contractors that would ignore the [redacted] rules if we wanted to save money. I believe he was clearly inviting us to ignore the hazards to ourselves, the contractors and general public from the assumed hazards in our attic. This type of suggestion is disturbing, and may in fact be criminal.The business owner is correct in stating that not all vermiculite is contaminated with asbestos, however, per the EPA rules, it is assumed to be as testing of one area or lot does not indicate absence of asbestos in another area. The bags in the attic were from the very vermiculite company associated with asbestos [redacted] The same link the owner provided in his response is very clear that any vermiculite is to be assumed to be contaminated with asbestos, to leave it be if possible, and if it must be disturbed, to be abated by professionals, which I had to do. While he is correct in stating that he could not have predicted ice damage to the home several years later, it is reasonable to assume that attic access for electrical work, vent duct work, etc. would take place in any home as part of normal upgrades. I have done some of this work myself, and sent electricians and other contractors up as well over these last few years, disturbing vermiculite insulation in the process. I would not have exposed myself or others to any possible asbestos contamination had I been informed of the hazards by a competent inspection.Had I known the presence of vermiculite and the related dangers, this would certainly been an issue for the prior owner to deal with as part of the home sale. I was not informed of this by the inspector despite the clearly labeled bags in clear view from the attic access and his own checklist having a box for this type of insulation which he did not check off. From our conversation on the phone with the business owner, it appears that he lacks knowledge of the issue presented by vermiculite, and despite his claim to the contrary, his checklist lists that very item as a component of attic insulation he should have checked off as the bags were in plain view. That he now states these bags were not in plain sight during his inspection is more than an oversight at the time, it is malfeasance compounded now by outright false statements, a disturbing combination. I feel that this home inspection contractor is negligent in his responsibilities, untrustworthy when questioned, refuses to be held accountable for oversights or negligence, and lacks the basic knowledge surrounding his craft to provide workmanlike inspections to prospective home buyers. His suggestion that we simply avoid a proper abatement and have a less reputable contractor remove the insulation on the cheap turning a blind eye to the issue is extremely disturbing and unprofessional. Far from being belligerent in our phone conversation with him, he himself was evasive, condescending, and uninformed and then simply unconcerned with the hazards presented by vermiculite insulation. He himself became loud, unprofessional, and defensive when we were attempting to problem solve the situation. I am not accepting the response from the contractor as it is full of falsehoods and clearly meant to avoid his responsibilities as a home inspector customers have to rely on in the home buying process. Final Business Response Addendum to the response to the complaint. Case ID XXXXXXMidstate Home Inspections does have a signed contract with the client agreeing that the inspection is performed using standards provided under current [redacted] A copy was provided to the clients with the inspection report. In Section 9.01 Record Keeping: We have to maintain a copy of the inspection report for 3 years from date of complete inspection, for any claims of Errors & Omission. After that date all claims are null and void. This inspection was completed in 2011 - over 4 years ago.

Home inspector failed to identify vermiculite/asbestos insulation, a choice on the inspection form, despite dozens of original bags in plain view. In [redacted] 2011, the Midstate Home Inspector contracted to inspect this home checked off fiberglass, cellulose, and rock wool insulation on the inspection form checklist, but not vermiculite despite there being dozens of original bags in plain view, some within inches of the attic access. There was a specific check box in the inspection form for this item that was left blank. Vermiculite is treated the same as asbestos by law and I am faced with a [redacted] bill to abate the insulation in the attic to allow work to repair ice dam damage to ceilings and walls to begin after this nasty winter. I may eventually realize a reimbursement of up to [redacted] dollars from the [redacted] Fund, set up by the original vendor, [redacted] to assist customers facing this problem, however I must pay the full abatement bill of [redacted] first. I will have to take out a loan to finance this abatement and pay for the inspector's oversight for years to come. In the interest of problem solving, I approached the Midstate Home Inspector by phone on [redacted] where he stated his inspection is not required to identify the insulation despite his inspection form boxes implying that his company inspection would cover this. The inspector was not moved by the fact that the actual empty bags of vermiculite were in plain sight. He suggested that not all vermiculite was asbestos and maintained that some insulation contractors would remove the vermiculite and that I needed to look around for a vendor that would essentially break the law. He was adamant that I was going overboard by abating the vermiculite, that the law does not require it to be treated as asbestos tainted, and that there are many contractors willing to do the work without the expense of a proper abatement. I am appalled by this home inspector's apparent lack of knowledge of the asbestos related hazard in the first place, his unwillingness to acknowledge his responsibility to inspect the home per his company form (which includes vermiculite as a insulation check box), his malfeasance as a home inspector to warn home buyers of this liability, and finally, his complete disregard of ethics in suggesting I look for a insulation contractor that will bypass the law and place myself, my family, and others at risk by inappropriate removal and disposal of asbestos tainted insulation that he failed to identify despite the hazard being clearly identified in plain view from the attic access.Desired SettlementI am seeking compensation for actual damages due to malfeasance. Specifically, that portion of the abatement costs not covered by insurance for the actual damaged area and the likely reimbursement from the [redacted] for up to [redacted] I expect the compensation from Midstate Home Inspections to be on the order of [redacted] I will seek legal council as the contractor is not agreeable to resolving this issue without being forced to.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted], [redacted]Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXXContact Email: [redacted]In response to the complaint: I would like to state, as owner of Midstate Home Inspections, that all inspections are performed in a manner consistent with the standards of the State of [redacted] This is a visual inspection of readily accessible areas of conditions existing at the time of the inspection only, as stated on the contract that the client reads and signs before the inspection. Also on that contract it states that we do not intend to address the possible presence or danger from asbestos or other airborne related illnesses. The contract states that the client is urged to contact a reputable specialist if information identification or testing of asbestos is desired. Also the client received a copy of the [redacted] with the report. In the state regulations [redacted] it states: Inspector shall not be required to Observe and Report on the following, the type(s) and/or amounts of insulation and/or its material make-up. Concealed insulation and vapor rders.The inspector shall report on the existence of exposed insulation in unfinished spaces (attic). This information is in Section 9 of the [redacted]As for types of insulation on the inspection report, I do that as a courtesy if it is readily observable. These insulation bags were not in view at the time of the inspection. If they were, the box would have been checked off, as the other types were checked off. (This house's insulation has been updated. The boxes I checked off were the more recent insulation that were readily observable at the time of the inspection).Home inspectors are generalists. We are not scientists that figure out what is hazardous. As stated in the contract, they had the option of doing further inspections for contaminants. Not all vermiculite is asbestos borne. It would have to be tested by a reliable lab and as far as I know the home owner has not had that testing done. There are thousands of homes that have vermiculite insulation, as it was a common insulation in the past.As for the complainants, when I talked to them on the phone, they were belligerent, telling me that I could not read and insulting my character, so I ended the conversation with them. I never told them to do anything illegal. I told them they should get it tested. I have been doing home inspections since 1991 and have completed over 3000 inspections and have never had this sort of issue/complaint. This inspection was done over 4 years ago. At that time there would have been no discussion of removing vermiculite insulation. As you will see from the linked recommendations from the EPA in 2015 they still don't recommend disturbing it, unless necessary. We could not predict their ice dam problems back in 2011.I am attaching a link issued by [redacted] in [redacted] of 2015. This gives important information about Vermiculite.[redacted]Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)The response from the business states "As for types of insulation on the inspection report, I do that as a courtesy if it is readily observable. These insulation bags were not in view at the time of the inspection. If they were, the box would have been checked off, as the other types were checked off." This is completely false. Some clearly labeled bags were within inches of the attic access, and others were within plain view from that same access without entering the attic at all by simply looking in any direction. I have a series of photographs from that very access that show numbers of readily identifiable bags. I am submitting the photos in a claim to attempt to recoup some funds I expended on abatement from the [redacted] The business owner did in fact suggest over the phone that many insulation contractors would deal with vermiculite removal without regard to [redacted] rules to the contrary that require it be abated as if contaminated by asbestos. He stated that the [redacted] inspector was being a stickler for the rules, and implied that we could find many contractors that would ignore the [redacted] rules if we wanted to save money. I believe he was clearly inviting us to ignore the hazards to ourselves, the contractors and general public from the assumed hazards in our attic. This type of suggestion is disturbing, and may in fact be criminal.The business owner is correct in stating that not all vermiculite is contaminated with asbestos, however, per the EPA rules, it is assumed to be as testing of one area or lot does not indicate absence of asbestos in another area. The bags in the attic were from the very vermiculite company associated with asbestos [redacted] The same link the owner provided in his response is very clear that any vermiculite is to be assumed to be contaminated with asbestos, to leave it be if possible, and if it must be disturbed, to be abated by professionals, which I had to do. While he is correct in stating that he could not have predicted ice damage to the home several years later, it is reasonable to assume that attic access for electrical work, vent duct work, etc. would take place in any home as part of normal upgrades. I have done some of this work myself, and sent electricians and other contractors up as well over these last few years, disturbing vermiculite insulation in the process. I would not have exposed myself or others to any possible asbestos contamination had I been informed of the hazards by a competent inspection.Had I known the presence of vermiculite and the related dangers, this would certainly been an issue for the prior owner to deal with as part of the home sale. I was not informed of this by the inspector despite the clearly labeled bags in clear view from the attic access and his own checklist having a box for this type of insulation which he did not check off. From our conversation on the phone with the business owner, it appears that he lacks knowledge of the issue presented by vermiculite, and despite his claim to the contrary, his checklist lists that very item as a component of attic insulation he should have checked off as the bags were in plain view. That he now states these bags were not in plain sight during his inspection is more than an oversight at the time, it is malfeasance compounded now by outright false statements, a disturbing combination. I feel that this home inspection contractor is negligent in his responsibilities, untrustworthy when questioned, refuses to be held accountable for oversights or negligence, and lacks the basic knowledge surrounding his craft to provide workmanlike inspections to prospective home buyers. His suggestion that we simply avoid a proper abatement and have a less reputable contractor remove the insulation on the cheap turning a blind eye to the issue is extremely disturbing and unprofessional. Far from being belligerent in our phone conversation with him, he himself was evasive, condescending, and uninformed and then simply unconcerned with the hazards presented by vermiculite insulation. He himself became loud, unprofessional, and defensive when we were attempting to problem solve the situation. I am not accepting the response from the contractor as it is full of falsehoods and clearly meant to avoid his responsibilities as a home inspector customers have to rely on in the home buying process. Final Business Response Addendum to the response to the complaint. Case ID XXXXXXMidstate Home Inspections does have a signed contract with the client agreeing that the inspection is performed using standards provided under current [redacted] A copy was provided to the clients with the inspection report. In Section 9.01 Record Keeping: We have to maintain a copy of the inspection report for 3 years from date of complete inspection, for any claims of Errors & Omission. After that date all claims are null and void. This inspection was completed in 2011 - over 4 years ago.