In 2018, Senator Scott Surovell brought before the Virginia Senate a bill to disallow home inspectors from limiting their liabilty. This bill was defeated in comittee by a margin of one vote.

Senator Surovell brought a similar measure to the Virginia Housing Commission in 2025. As of this writing, October 18, 2025, the VHC has held three hearings on this matter. VAREI was represented at two of them. Scroll down to view a recording of the VAREI administrator's rehearsal for the September 8 meeting. 

It is VAREI's understandig that the VHC intends to vote this measure up or down at a meeting scheduled in December. We have been invited to deliver additional information that might affect commission members' thinking on this vital topic. 

Please join the conversation!

Following is an AI-generated transcript of the relevant portion of the September 8 VHC meeting:

Chair: Next up, we have the home inspector disclaimer of civil liability. You all may recall that there was a presentation by senator Servile, earlier this year where he provided insight into the impetus behind the piece of legislation which he carried. There was a counter perspective that was provided very briefly at the end of the meeting, and we wanted to afford them a formal opportunity to offer some additional insight as we continue to weigh this issue. I also do wish to note that senator servile is participating virtually in today's meeting, as he may pipe in if he has any questions or wishes to provide any clarity to any comments or questions which may be posed to him or those who'll be presenting. With that being said, I will invite mister Hollis Brown, to step up to the podium.

Hollis Brown: So I apologize.

It was my understanding that, Senator Surovell was gonna make a presentation before me, but apparently that's not how it works. So. He just for clarity for all who are participating virtually or here in the audience, Senator Serval had the chance to provide a formal presentation before, so we just didn't want to make it redundant. He's provided his presentation. We never had afforded a counter perspective, the opportunity to speak to the matter, and we were really grateful that you stood up and offered some additional insight and options for us to weigh during, senator Serval's presentation. So he wanted to give you this formal chance to provide a presentation. So Senator Servile's just online, to make himself available, but by no means will there be any formal presentation on his part. Okay. Well, thank thank you, madam chair. So good afternoon.

My name is Hollis Brown. Following a 25 year career in the building business, I became a full time home inspector in 1997. In 02/2004, I acquired the school at which I had received my entry level training, and I've been training home inspectors on weekends ever since. I'm here today representing the Virginia Association of Real Estate Inspectors, the acronym, v a r e I, very sometimes pronounced Varee. We are a professional association of Virginia licensed home inspectors. Before I get started though, I would like to thank you, the Housing Commission, for inviting us here today. This is an important topic that deserves responsible dialogue. I I would also like to thank Senator Surravel, for putting this topic on the table. To the degree to which his characterization of our profession is common understanding, I would say that we have a PR problem. To the extent to which it is real, we have some self policing to do, but after all, isn't that the purpose of professional associations?

Equally importantly though, I believe that there's room for improvement, to the licensing regulation. But anyway, here we are. We've succeeded in starting a conversation. So let's talk. So an interesting thing happened, in the late 19 nineties, early aughts. So Realtors stopped referring to home inspectors by the pejorative term deal killer. My mentor at the time explained to me that the real estate community was gradually coming to, to the understanding, the realization that we protected their liability. Now I'm sure that I misunderstood his meaning. I thought he was saying that home buyers had started suing home inspectors rather than suing real estate agents. In retrospect, however, what I came to recognize was that the reality is that because of home inspections, there is greater home buying satisfaction, which translates to fewer lawsuits across the board.

You see, home buyers are upset when they buy a house and then discover after it's too late some problem that might have affected their negotiating position or the purchase decision had they known about it before settlement. What home inspections do is inform the purchase decision. Buyers who have a home inspected prior to making the final purchase decision have considerably better outcomes, fewer post settlement surprises. Was I supposed to have a remote? Didn't somebody say I would have a remote so I could go through? It is up here. How does this go? Like this way? There we go. So, the typical real estate contract includes a clause that guarantees the purchaser the right to cancel the contract if a home inspection report identifies a defect significant enough to negatively affect the purchase decision.

This clause is often interpreted to mean that a home buyer can attach a home inspection report to a contract addendum, cancel the contract, and get their earnest money refunded. With this safeguard in place, fewer homebuyers experience buyer's remorse when they discover after settlement a reality that they wish they had known about prior. So sometimes things just don't work out the way we wish they would. When recent home buyers are confronted by this reality, they don't call the home inspector. No. They call the real estate agent. You sold me this house, and the first time it rained, the roof leaked. What are you gonna do about it? Now at this point, you can be sure of 1 thing, that that agent is going to go looking for a home inspector who looks more critically at roofing conditions. There's a second thing that's not quite as certain, but is also very likely.

The name of that inspector, the 1 who underreported the roof, that person's name is gonna be circulated around that real estate office in less than flattering terms. So home inspectors are licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The license regulation includes a standard of practice, a code of ethics, and some minimum requirements. In the real world, there is a limit to our ability to know. The standard of practice outlines what a home inspector is required and is not required to do. Basically, though, what we do is look at a house at a specific time, under a specific set of circumstances, limited by reality. We make observations and recommendations based on what we're able to access, what we can see. I take pride in what I do. I come home most evenings confident that I made a positive difference in someone's life. I got an email recently 2 days after the inspection.

Best $800 we ever spent. Thanks. Now I don't know to this day if that couple exercised their rights under the contingency clause and went looking for another house or if they negotiated 20% off the purchase price. But I'm sure of 1 thing. That agent is very glad that their client understood timely the conditions that were not apparent to them at the time of contract signing. So holding professionals accountable for their shortcomings makes sense. Right? The client paid for a product. They feel like they didn't get what they paid for. They suffered a loss.

The inspector should make them whole. In fact, it's not even the inspectors money. It's the insurance company that pays and they have deep pockets. So what's the problem? Well, we're not engineers, plumbers, or HVAC technicians. Our job is to identify visible concerns and make recommendations, not to guarantee performance or lifespan of systems. Unlimited liability implies a level of expertise and certainty that inspectors are neither required nor equipped to provide. We are on-site for a limited and often we are we're on-site for a limited time and often have restricted access to critical areas like attics, crawl spaces, or electric panels. Removing liability caps would misrepresent inspections as guarantees of a home's condition, which they are not. A fundamental issue is the massive gap between the cost of an inspection and the potential liability.

An inspector might charge only a few $100 for an inspection, yet be expected to pay out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for an alleged mis defect. This creates a grossly unreasonable risk to reward ratio. If inspectors were to increase their fees to match this increased risk, their service could become unaffordable for many home buyers, undermining the purpose of the inspection itself. A liability limit on the inspection fee is a reasonable, predictable amount. In contrast, tying liability to a high insurance limit creates a large, unpredictable financial exposure. This could lead to a significant increase in insurance premiums as carriers face greater potential payouts with those costs ultimately passed on to consumers. Current limits of liability protect against claims of negligence. However, 1 cannot contract out of gross negligence. If the inspector is actually grossly negligent, then they'll lose a suit for gross negligence. So there's no need for this legislation.

The consumer protection that this bill already see that this bill seeks already exists. Inspection reports include clear disclaimers about scope and limitations. Buyers are advised to seek follow-up evaluations when necessary. Depore already disciplines inspectors who violate standards. Insurance companies assess risk based on an inspector's claims history. A large payout for an insurer makes the inspector a high risk client. As a result, the inspector could face non renewal of their policy or find it difficult to secure new coverage. This creates a serious problem. In states where professional liability insurance is mandatory, an inspector who becomes non insurable can be forced to stop practicing their profession. This effectively punishes the inspector for a single event.

The career this career ending risk could also deter new entrance, making the profession less attractive over time. So I wanna feel free to discuss openly. I wanna share with my client everything that I think is relevant to their purchase decision. My lawyer, on the other hand, warns me not to mention anything outside the scope of the standard of practice. You're just assuming unnecessary liability, he says. I think I'm being conscientious. With a limitation of liability in place, I am much more likely to answer questions about wells, septic systems, and environmental hazards, items that are clearly outside the standard of practice but of significant interest to the homebuyer. Remove that limitation of liability, and I think I'm going to find myself biting my tongue and writing a much more defensive report. So this law would make Virginia an outlier. Most states allow inspectors to limit liability to the inspection fee or some defined amount.

If Virginia eliminates this right, national insurance carriers may raise premiums or even exit the market, making e and o coverage unaffordable or unavailable. So removing liability from home inspection contracts, 1, increases legal exposure without improving customer protection, 2, harms small businesses and raises costs for homebuyers, 3, misrepresents the scope and purpose of a visual inspection, 4, threatens insurance accessibility in Virginia, and just might end an inspector's career over 1 simple misunderstanding. So the solution to bad inspections is not more litigation. Rather, it's better inspections. The path to better inspections is better inspectors, and the path to better inspectors is better preparation, more training. If you wanna actually improve things with respect to home inspections, I say look to the regulation, but that's a topic for another day. Finally, let me just say that I admire quixotism. I've tilted at some rate windmills in my day. Experience has taught me though that it's not how hard you tilt, it's what windmills you tilt at. I think it's time to move this conversation forward.

To that end, we would like to invite Senator Surovell and for that matter, any member of the commission, to join us at the Virginia Association of Real Estate Inspectors at our annual meeting in Glen Allen on Thursday, October 9. We have most of our programs set, but I'm sure we could make 30 minutes available to discuss ways that we could improve our process to better serve the Virginia home buying public. I believe that we have that ambition in common. You're also invited to the quarterly meeting of the Northern Virginia chapter of the American Society of Home Inspectors. We will, be in in Oakton at 7PM on Wednesday of next week. We will feed you at both meetings, so please bring your appetite. I hope you'll stay for the entirety of both meetings. We'd like to see firsthand, I'd like we'd like you to see firsthand how we support each other in our individual and collective pursuits of professionalism. So in closing, let me just point out that there were over 200,000 transactions in 2023 and 2024. According to the DPOR biannual report for the years 2022-'23, and 2023-'24, 2023-'24, the ALHI board received a total of 73 complaints spread across 3 professions.

So keeping the math easy, let's assume that half of those 200,000 homes were inspected. 73 is point 073%. We thank you for listening. We're very available to support this discussion in whatever way you think we would be helpful. We're here to fill in the blanks. Where something is unclear or uncertain, we can answer questions and even voice opinions. I thank you for your time, and I'm now ready to take your questions.

Chair: Well, thank you, Mister Brown, for the insightful presentation. Are there any comments or questions from members of the work group? Okay.

Mister Clark?

Andrew Clark: Madam chair, just a question. In terms of licensure and qualifications, are you guys required to take any courses or are you certified or licensed contractors or anything like that, educational and building science or technology?

Hollis: So the, I'm trying to find that slide. I think I had it up just a second ago. There you go. So the the entry level, requirements are changing as we speak. They actually the new system goes into effect, oh, I'm sorry. I've got the I'm sorry. That's not gonna be on there.

It's on mine, not yours. Sorry. That's alright. The entry level, requirements are changing, and they go into effect October 1. So, what we're what we're looking at is is basically, the the numbers haven't changed. So what, what the requirement has been since 2017, I believe, would be 35 hours of, an approved class and then 50 inspections in the field or 70 hours of training and 25 supervised inspections. The entry the CE requirements then are, 20 20 CEs, 20 hours every 2 years.

Clark: Several years ago, Andrew Clark with the Home Builders Association. We did that, legislation with, Senator McPike dealing with, smoke alarms, and ensuring they're functioning in every resale house. And I showed up to 1 of the board meetings and the amount of pushback that we got over a simple testing of a smoke alarm was astonishing to me, compared to what the new construction industry goes through while building a home, ensuring the quality and safety and the durability and the efficiency of that home.

And, you know, I guess to Senator Surovell's point, possibly, you know, having just gotten a home inspection myself, gone through a couple of them, there are a lot of representations made that, you know, being in the industry, I know we're just kind of broad generalizations. I mean, so you made a comment about, you know, whether it's not you said, path is better inspectors, better licensure. I mean, is that more stringent requirements in terms of understanding kind of the the building science and and the code of it? Because you are inspecting structural elements and mechanical things.

Hollis: I just So you've you've you've you've touched on 2 things here. Let's take the second 1 first, but I wanna go back to your first comment your your first comment. Okay? The 35 hours is not nearly enough. That's why I start out by saying if we wanna if we wanna improve things, look at the look to the regulation. 35 hours is not close to enough.

70 hours, is I I tell you, when I when when when I was before licensing before licensure existed, we set the curriculum because we believed that we knew what people needed to know know to get into the business. When licensure came in, we invited people into the class and pointed out to them that we actually exceed the requirements of the state. And the pushback I got was, oh, no. No. No. No. I just want the bare minimum. I just want the bare minimum. So I think that raising the bare minimum makes a lot of sense to me. Right?

Double it. 35 is is is absurd. 70 is scratching the surface. A 140 as a minimum makes a whole lot of sense to me. I would point out, however, that I have a conflict of interest, and, perhaps we could get someone else to speak, up to that a little bit more. But, yes, I think that training is the key. You say with you're with the builders, the, the the NRS, the the new residential structure that we that we get credit for CEs for taking that module every 2 years is is absurd. It's patently absurd. I wasn't involved in that negotiation, but that is just screams for a change. But let me speak to this the the smoke detector thing.

I would certainly, we're not gonna relitigate that. No. I want to. I want to. Let me because this I think that this helps. Okay? This this help will help help with some understanding. 1 of the things that home inspectors do is we learn from experience. Okay? And, there's there comes a time in the rookie home inspector's career that they ask themselves, how many times do I have to learn that lesson?

Okay? Pushing the button on the on the smoke detector, which seems like a simple thing to you, creates all kinds of havoc. Okay? And I'm not gonna stand up here and tell you all the stories that I all all the the the the the opportunities I had to learn that lesson before I finally decided that I've learned it. But, and and if you wanna have that discussion, we can have it offline. But that's a very real misunderstanding that I think that you personally have. Go ahead. Do you have something? Go ahead.

Chair: Well, it's my meeting, so I'll just help 1.

You can go ahead. But thank you. Is it mister Clark, do you have any further comments? Okay. Mister Johnson.

Martin Johnson: Thank thank you, madam chair. Martin Johnson with the Virginia Association of Realtors. And I was here when we worked on the enabling legislation to require licensing. And I guess I have 1 question. What has been the experience in your industry and states that have gone down this path?

Hollis: I think we we touched on that a few minutes ago. I'm not I don't know a lot about what's going on in those others, but I know that New Jersey for instance, they found you know the liability going way up and people exiting the profession because of it. However, on the flip side, their training requirement is way higher than ours. Follow-up question, madam chair. Thank you. How far can Deep Pour go in the enforcement provisions under their regulations? Can they strip you of your license? Yes.

Chair: Any further questions from members of the dias? Seeing none at the moment.

I would like to forward senator Serval the chance to speak if he is able to join us.

Senator Surovell: Yep. I'm right here.

Chair: Would you like to provide any comments, to this matter?

Surovell: Sure. A couple of things. First of all, I appreciate the presentation. It was good to hear from the home inspection industry, and I'm I'm glad to hear there are so few complaints that are filed. If that's the case, then that means that this insurance shouldn't cost very much. There'll be very few cases, and it's not that big of a deal.

So, if the only point whatever it is, 0.07 percent of cases result in or inspections result in complaints. Most broadly speaking, though, I think we all need to remember, we're talking about the largest investment anybody, typical person will ever make. We're talking about somebody's home. And people are putting down a significant amount of money to get this home, and most people don't know how to inspect a home or how to determine there's problems. And what we're talking about here is preventing a situation where somebody might put down you know, the most money they've ever saved up to put down, and then they buy a house, and then they find out that this house has a lingering liability that might cost them $30, $50, or a $100,000 to fix, whether it's a termite problem or a sewage problem or some kind of roof problem or whatever. And and and often, it's a problem that could have been discovered if somebody had just done a thorough inspection, which is often why people will pay for 1 of these things that they really want them. Remember, these are voluntary transactions that are part of a real estate purchase. They're not something you have to do. It's something that a homeowner and a buyer can choose to do as part of the process, but they're not required to do it. So, the whole point of doing it is so that the buyer can mitigate their risk, you know, of making this really big investment they're about to make to make sure they're not buying themselves a huge problem.

Right? They can end up buying themselves a bigger problem than their down payment, and so that's why people do this. With regard to gross negligence, you know, the burden of proof on gross negligence is really high. It's not easy just to prove gross negligence. The other thing I would say is that is that, you know, the the way we deal with things in society, when people make mistakes or they when they are negligent, whether it's you all driving a car or professionals like myself who's an attorney or doctors or whatever, the way we deal with that kind of risk in society is through insurance. We spread the risk amongst everybody in society. And then when there's mistakes, everybody shares in that risk. And the insurance companies hire actuaries that build that into the price of their insurance, and and that's part of the cost of doing business. This is probably 1 of the only industries that I'm aware of that gets a special rule that allows themselves to limit their liability to $500 I guarantee you that if you all wanted to let me as an attorney limit my my liability to $500 I'd be happy to take that deal. Will it affect how I do my job?

Absolutely. If I know that nobody can ever sue me for more than $500, their attorney's fees are gonna cost them tens of thousands of dollars to sue me for the $500, I'll never get sued. I'll never be held responsible? Is that gonna affect how lawyers are gonna do their job? Of course, it will. And that also affects how home inspectors do their job. What causes people to do good jobs is the risk and the possibility of getting sued and being held accountable for it. That's how we do things in our world. And so, you know, for a lot of different reasons, I just don't see why this 1 little industry has this special carve out that allows them to to escape responsibility for making mistakes that the rest of us in every other job in the world have to do you know, have to live by. So, to me, it's it's screaming out for solution.

I'm glad to hear that they think think that people need to be trained better. I agree with that. I can't imagine 35 hours of training is sufficient. But but, you know, allowing them to limit liability to $500 when then when we require them to also carry a million dollars of insurance, it's just it's a it's a really bizarre way for us to let us to to have policy in the state, and I think it needs to be fixed. And I appreciate you all taking the time to listen.

Chair: Thank you, senator Servel. Would you like to provide a response?

Hollis: Well, I have specific instructions not to engage in debate from my colleagues. That I would just point out that there are some inconsistencies perhaps senator Servel said to do a little research. Some of the, some of what he said just isn't accurate.

Chair: Okay. Mr. Johnson.

Johnson: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Brown, an interesting observation made by Senator Surovell, being somewhat knowledgeable in the real estate transaction, what other industries have this protection that are involved in the transaction? Do you know?

Hollis: I I don't know. Inspectors.

I I I don't know the answer to that.

Johnson: Foundation inspectors, termite inspectors, real estate brokers, general contractors.

Hollis: I I have no information about other trades. I don't know.

Johnson: Title attorneys. I don't know. Lenders. Okay. Thank you. So that's a question that we will be looking into as the housing commission.

Chair: I can see staff is diligently writing that down. That being said, while, you didn't wanna engage in debate, it sounds as if there is an opportunity for further discussion offline between yourself and Senator Surovell and other members of this work group. So I am sure that all who wish to weigh in on this issue will have an opportunity to, engage in some additional discourse and then we can decide as members of the housing commission if we wish to take further action. But doesn't appear at this moment as if we have enough information to do so at this moment. Fair enough. So I thank you for your time. Do you have any further comments before, you depart us for the day?

Hollis: I think I said what I what I came to say. Yeah. I appreciate your time.

Chair: Well, thank you so much, mister Brown. Have a wonderful day.

Hollis: I would I would say that that was a whole lot, more comfortable than having that thing blare in my ear last time and you gave me 15 more seconds. This time you actually asked me 3 times if I had anything else to say.

Chair: So, thank you. Mister Brown, last time you attended our meeting, you were not invited to speak. You happened to show up, and we gave you the 3 minutes during public comment time, and we're grateful for the insight that you provided and went so far that we wanted to make sure that you had the chance to present before the full work group. So we are very grateful to have you here today. We give everyone 3 minutes during public comment time, and you've had the opportunity to provide a counter response to Senator Serval's piece of legislation. So as always, if you ever wish to provide additional insight, you're more than welcome to engage with the Virginia Housing Commission.

Have a great day, sir. Thank you very much.