Second Opinion Inspections

Wood Destroying Insect Inspection Report form NPMA-33 (NPMA-33)

Wood Destroying Insect (WDI)

Robert Dyer Batman (November 2005)

This document explains 2 nd opinion inspections. This document is not of a legal nature and is not an expression of legal opinion. It is simply contains statements of fact, a few facts, regarding the NPMA-33 inspection report plus a few recommendations which have been tossed in for good measure.

If a person wants to dispute an inspector's reported findings, s/he will probably need a Second Opinion Inspection which supports their claim(s). The concerned party and property owner should not, between inspections, allow any disturbance, in any form, in the area(s) where a previous inspection reported visible WDI evidence; do not disturb, destroy, cover-up, or remove any existing or reported WDI infestation evidence.

Second Opinion Inspections are limited and conditional inspections. The second opinion inspection company performs a 2 nd NPMA-33 inspection. Even when the only thing the requesting party wants the 2 nd inspection company to do is either confirm or deny previous findings, i.e.; is it termite damage in the overhead garage door frame or is it wood-rot or both?, the 2 nd opinion inspection company probably will perform a second NPMA-33 inspection. However they may simply draft a simple statement on their letterhead stating something similar to the following:

Our company was only authorized to confirm or deny whether or not the area of previously reported visible termite infestation evidence located in the south exterior door frame of the south-most overhead garage door is in fact termite infestation evidence or something else. Our inspector inspected the area in question on this date and found it to be whatever. No other inspection was requested, authorized or performed.

If a home inspection company has included an NPMA-33 inspection along with their home inspection and one of the interested parties of a real estate transaction requests that an NPMA-33 also be performed by a licensed pest control operator, the second NPMA-33 inspection/report is, technically, a second opinion inspection. Therefore, the requesting party will need to provide the second inspector/inspection company a legible copy of the home inspection company's NPMA-33 report type prior to or at the time of the second opinion inspection (also see below).

If the Second Opinion Inspection is for real estate purposes, the second inspection company and any succeeding inspection companies will require a legible copy of the previous report(s) made by other inspector(s) and said written report(s) must be provided at or before inspection time. The Second Opinion Inspector may attach a copy the previous report(s) to their Second Opinion Inspection Report. Without a legible copy of the previous report(s) there can be no Second Opinion Inspection Report as there would be no previous inspection documentation for comparison.

TAKE NOTE : A Second Opinion Inspection is not a damage report in any form. Parties concerned about damage should hire a licensed and qualified member of the building trade (a structural engineer or other structural professional) to inspect for damage and make needed repairs.

POINTS OF INFORMATION:

• Nobody can look at termite damage and tell how old it is.
• Nobody can tell when termites first infested a building.
• Nobody can tell the extent of termite damage in a building without taking the building apart, board by board.
• A building can have extensive termite infestation and termite damage and have absolutely no visible evidence of termite infestation evidence.
• Wood destroying insects can infest a building at any time. It is not uncommon for WDI evidence to appear, or wood destroying insects to appear, in a building/structure in the time period between the NPMA-33 inspection and closing. It is also common for WDI infestation evidence to be exposed after storage has been moved or removed following the NPMA-33 inspection and the inspector/inspection company is not responsible for detecting such evidence during the inspection.
• The NPMA-33 and second opinion inspections are based on and subject to visual inspection of only the areas readily accessible for visual inspection on the date and at the time of inspection. Do not assume that inspection has been performed in any inaccessible or obstructed areas. The inspector is not responsible for finding and reporting any hidden WDI infestation evidence.
• The NPMA-33 inspector is not authorized to pass or fail a structure and is not authorized to require anybody to treat anything.
• Parties disputing a treatment requirement must take that matter up with the party requiring the treatment, and that is not, or should not be, the inspector or inspecting company.
• Parties who can require treatment are; 1) mortgage company, 2) insurance underwriter, 3) real estate company (check you listing agreement), 4) closing agency/agent, 5) private lender, 6) buyer via stipulation(s) in an offer to purchase, 7) state regulation and/or municipality ordinance, 8) some other contractual obligation and/or 9) any combination of the aforelisted. If more than one party is requiring inspection, the requiring parties may have different requirements. The inspector is not authorized to interpret contractual obligations. The inspector is not authorized to tell you whether or not a treatment will be required.
• The party requiring treatment may or may not base their treatment requirement on the findings reported in the NPMA-33 inspection report. If the requiring party is basing their treatment requirements on the NPMA-33 findings, do not misconstrue this to mean that the inspector or the inspection company is requiring the treatment; they are not. As aforementioned, the party disputing a treatment requirement must take that matter up with the party requiring the treatment.
• Treatment recommendations are not treatment requirements. The NPMA-33 establishes treatment recommendation guidelines in part 2 on page 2 of the NPMA-33 inspection/report form and the inspector should follow the guidelines. The NPMA-33 does not establish treatment requirements. However, the NPMA-33 discloses in part 2 on page 2 that the FHA and VA have established a treatment requirement whereby they (FHA and VA) require treatment when active infestation is observed/reported.

People often ask; "What is the NPMA-33 inspector looking for?"

The NPMA-33 inspector is looking for visible "signs" of WDI infestation evidence resulting from 1) termites, 2) carpenter ants, 3) carpenter bees, and/or 4) reinfesting wood-boring beetles, and the inspector is also looking for "signs" of previous treatment evidence. The NPMA-33 does not include inspection for any other wood destroying organisms or conditions conducive to WDI infestation.

The NPMA-33 includes eight (8) "signs" of WDI infestation evidence: 1) live insects, 2) dead insects, 3) insect body parts, 4) frass, 5) shelter tubes, 6) exit holes, 7) staining, and 8) visible termite damage. Visible termite damage is only a "sign" of termite infestation evidence; it is not an evaluation of the termite damage. Do not misconstrue this "sign" of infestation evidence as a damage report; the NPMA-33 is not a structural damage report or a damage report in any form. Visible "signs" of WDI infestation evidence indicates either previous or current WDI infestation. The inspector should sound exposed structural members and probe infestation areas (to determine activity, if possible). It is not always possible to discover infestation evidence or to determine activity because sounding and probing are limited aids and are not exhaustive measures in the detection of infestation evidence and/or WDI activity. When only a small area of WDI infestation evidence is visible, the inspector should not destroy said evidence by sounding or probing.

When the inspector sees "signs" indicating that the structure(s) or a portion thereof may have been previously treated, s/he should report said findings. The reporting of what appears to be "signs" of previous treatment is neither a guarantee or warranty or assurance of any kind whatsoever regarding said treatment nor is it an indication as to the extent of said treatment. Parties concerned about previous treatment must take that matter up with the property owner. The property owner has the burden of proof regarding whether or not a previous treatment satisfies transaction requirements and/or the specifications stipulated in part 2 on page 2 of the NPMA-33.

All the inspection and reporting requirements, the treatment recommendation guidelines, and the scope and limitations of the NPMA-33 inspection/report are set forth in the NPMA-33 report form and no other assumptions or expectations or representations or standards of care shall apply. In no way, implied or otherwise, is the NPMA-33 inspection report a guarantee or warranty as to the absence of any WDI infestation evidence.

The NPMA-33 is not suggestive; it does not matter what the inspector or any party of the transaction thinks or assumes. The NPMA-33 does not call for subjective conjecture. The NPMA-33 is based on the inspection for and reporting of objective evidence or, in other words, visible, physical evidence.

Interested parties should be present at inspection time. Ask the inspector whether or not s/he found any WDI or previous treatment evidence. If the inspector says "yes", ask the inspector to show you the evidence.

If you want or need a second opinion inspection, call

Best Exterminators today.

(816) 765-8844 or (913) 671-8844