Supreme Court Does Not Extend Home Inspector Liability To 3rd Parties

Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Home inspections are a standard part of the buying process throughout the state, and, in a recent case, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined whether a home inspector’s liability extends to a social guest of the homeowner who was injured when a railing collapsed shortly after purchase.
In 2010, Daniel Uggla purchased a home in Franklin, Tennessee, and during a housewarming party, his guest, Charles Grogan, fell through a second-story deck railing that had been improperly constructed.
  Mr. Grogan filed a lawsuit against the home inspector hired by Mr. Uggla to perform a pre-purchase inspection of the residence.  Mr. Grogan claimed that the home inspector should have known the deck railing was constructed with interior finishing nails in violation of building codes, that the inspector failed to perform a test to determine the amount of force the railing could withstand, and that the inspector failed to report the negligent construction.
The home inspector filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case, which the trial court granted after finding the plaintiff did not meet the elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s outcome, but differed in its reasoning, choosing to analyze Mr. Grogan’s claim using the common law factors for negligence.  The Court of Appeals found the inspector did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, a key element in a negligence claim, and the case was properly dismissed.  
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mr. Grogan permission to appeal.  A majority of the Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Grogan’s complaint alleged both negligent misrepresentation and negligent inspection.  However, the majority determined Mr. Grogan did not meet essential elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim because he had not alleged that the home inspector affirmatively gave false information. Negligent misrepresentation requires an affirmative misstatement, not just a non-disclosure, the Court concluded. In its decision, the Court did not determine whether Restatement (Second) of Torts section 311 on negligent misrepresentation applies in Tennessee. 
In addition, the majority of the Court analyzed the plaintiff’s negligent inspection claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 324A (Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking).  Under this analysis, a person’s duty is circumscribed by the scope of the person’s undertaking.  The Court found, based on the statutes and regulations governing home inspections, testimony given in the case, and the agreement between the inspector and homebuyer, that a building codes inspection was not within the scope of work performed by the inspector. The Court also found, based on the agreement between the inspector and homebuyer and Tennessee statutes, that the inspector did not voluntarily assume a duty to third parties like the plaintiff, a guest of the homebuyer.
Justice Holly Kirby filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Justice Sharon G. Lee also filed a dissenting opinion, stating that she would reverse dismissal of Mr. Grogan’s lawsuit and allow his tort claims to proceed.  
In her opinion, Justice Kirby agreed with the majority’s decision to analyze Mr. Grogan’s negligent inspection claim under Restatement of Torts (Second) section 324A. However, she argued that the lack of a direct relationship does not automatically mean that the home inspector did not have a duty to a guest like Mr. Grogan. She rejected the majority’s characterization of Mr. Grogan’s other claim as one of negligent misrepresentation, stating that it should be viewed as negligent failure to warn, which by definition involves an omission.
Justice Lee, in a dissent, determined the case is one of negligence and the home inspector owed Mr. Grogan a duty of care based on the foreseeability that a homeowner would have guests over and that injury could result if the house was unsafe. Justice Lee also found that as a matter of public policy the general public relies heavily on home inspections and it is reasonable to extend the duty to perform a thorough inspection beyond the purchaser of the home.
To read the majority opinion authored by Justice Roger A. Page, as well as the opinions by Justice Holly Kirby, concurring in part, dissenting in part, and Justice Sharon G. Lee, dissenting, go to the opinions section of

Alexander Says Record Funding For Most Important Federal Program That Supports ORNL

United States Senator Lamar Alexander Wednesday said the government funding bill increases funding for the most important federal program – the Office of Science – that supports work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the third consecutive year, and sets a new record funding level in a regular appropriations bill. The bill also includes significant funding increases in supercomputing ... (click for more)

Alexander Says Funding Bill Includes $663 Million For Uranium Processing Facility

United States Senator Lamar Alexander Wednesday said the government funding bill provides $663 million for the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex -- one of the largest construction sites in the country -- with an overall budget of $6.5 billion and scheduled to be completed in 2025. The bill also provides $639 million for cleanup of former Cold War ... (click for more)

Alexander Says Chickamauga Lock Construction Fully Funded For 4th Consecutive Year

Senator Lamar Alexander on Wednesday said the government funding bill will fully fund construction of Chickamauga Lock for the fourth consecutive year, providing up to $78 million – which is more than twice the amount of funding the project received last year.   Senator Alexander said he has made completion of Chickamauga Lock one of his top priorities as chairman ... (click for more)

Former Juvenile Court Magistrate Says Gay Marriage Is "Nothing You Put In Air Quotes"

A former magistrate at Juvenile Court, who claims she was fired by Judge Rob Philyaw because she is openly gay, said Wednesday that gay marriage "is nothing you put in air quotes." She referred to County Attorney Rheubin Taylor asking her about her ceremony in marrying another woman and raising his hands to form quote marks. Elizabeth Gentzler is suing Hamilton County, Judge ... (click for more)

Avoid Underage Drinking And Other Prom Drama

My high school prom took a dramatic turn when two guys got their tuxedo jackets mixed up. One of them belonged to my date, who kindly offered to keep my wallet in his pocket. That’s the jacket another young man mistakenly grabbed off the back of a chair before heading to an underage drinking party that got shut down by police well after midnight—as kids scattered in every direction.  ... (click for more)

Roy Exum: The Sheriff’s Request

Jim Hammond will talk to members of the Hamilton County School Board on Thursday afternoon and, just like any police officer in the United States, he will request that everybody “stay in their own lane.” Some school board members tend to believe they need to help decide the best methods of protecting our children. They believe this is one of the things they were elected to do in ... (click for more)