06-24-2007, 02:27 PM
Thanks, John. What that case may have been about is when an agent oversteps his or her bounds and in some ways assumes the duties or responsibilities of an inspector. What I am talking about is the agent passing on what the inspector says and observing what the inspector does, and not acting in LIEU of an inspector or pretending to know more than the inspector (altough some agents DO know more than the inspectors).
This is obviously a coverage issue pertaining to when an agent departs from the role of agent and assumes the role of another professional, I would imagine.
However, when an agent merely serves as a report (I saw this, he said that, the inspector said there was a problem with the filter), I think the insurance company would have a hard time denying coverage because that is precisely what an agent does -- stands in the shoes of the principal, and as the eyes and ears of the principal (the buyer).
Can't be too cautious though. There ain't no aloha in real estate transactions.
This is obviously a coverage issue pertaining to when an agent departs from the role of agent and assumes the role of another professional, I would imagine.
However, when an agent merely serves as a report (I saw this, he said that, the inspector said there was a problem with the filter), I think the insurance company would have a hard time denying coverage because that is precisely what an agent does -- stands in the shoes of the principal, and as the eyes and ears of the principal (the buyer).
Can't be too cautious though. There ain't no aloha in real estate transactions.