Report for Underwriter - They want specific language - Coercion 7

[siteturbo]

Hello,

I just did a structural report on a residential home stating whether or not a specific framing element was structurally sound or not. The lender/underwriter came back to me and said that they must have specific language stating this and that and the other.

How far can these underwriters go in stating what me report should say and tell me "how to say it". Is there any legal implication from them telling me what to say in my report. I mean, they're asking for my opinion and I gave it. Then they ask me to say it another way. How far can they legally go with this. Isn't this called coercion and isn't it illegal, or at least unethical, to say the least?

It's a little frustrating!

 

[OHIOMatt]

They are asking to state something that you likely cannot substantiate. The addition is adding load to existing elements, this by definition has impacted the integrity of the home. It may be fine, and likely, based upon your assessment, is. I have been in this situation before. Stick to your report based upon the facts as you know them. The last time I was in this situation, I asked to speak to the department manager. I explained that we had no way of knowing what was there, only that it appeared to be performing adequately. They accepted the letter.

After the headaches, we made it a policy to avoid these types of projects.

 

[IRstuff]

So, the farthest you could go is, "...the additions do not appear to impact the structural integrity of the existing home"

My doctor gets this sort of reach statement request all the time, "...the patient does not have any diseases that prevent them from adopting..." usually from foreign countries trying to limit US adoptions.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[stanweld]

siteturbo,
Assuming that your investigation and report was generated by a propose real estate transaction, were you working for the underwriter, the seller or the buyer? If you are not working for the underwriter, you owe him nothing. If you are working for him, you may well need to address specific issues that he believes have not been properly addressed in your report.

 

[wadavis]

siteturbo,
It is understandable for an underwriter to be unhappy with a even slightly opaque summary, they came to an engineering firm to get clear info to act on. Consider formatting your executive summary with:

- A binary summary of your findings: "Additions Engineering Inc. says the additions do not impact the structural integrity of the existing home." / "Additions Engineering Inc. says a visual inspection is insufficient to assess the structural integrity of the existing house."

- A summary of your analysis scope (this is your disclaimer): "We visually inspected the addition for structural concerns, destructive testing, NDT, FEA or gypsy fortune telling was not included in the inspection."

- Clear recommended actions: "Additions Engineering Inc does not recommend further action" / "Additions Engineering Inc. recommends further inspection including the removal of finishing to inspect structural connections and members"

This of course is only from my experience as an EIT working on residential projects, I would like to hear others input.
wadavis

 

[rb1957]

"...the additions do not appear to impact the structural integrity of the existing home"

"...the additions do not appear to negatively impact the structural integrity of the existing home"

the addition clearly adds load into the house structure, and the house structure doesn't show obvious signs that these additional loads are causing damage.
and just to piss them off ... although clearly there are scenarios where the addition would cause damage to the house (eg, if the addition's footings subsided, if an unusually high snow load built up on the addition's roof.

i'd've thought (quite possibly wrongly) that "all" the underwriter would want is a statement that the structure (house and addition) is structurally sound.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[1gibson]

My report stated that, "...there was no evidence to indicate that the addition is impairing the structural integrity of the existing home."

Regardless of your scope, you can't definitively say "there was no evidence" unless you've completely investigated. What if there is/was evidence, you just didn't see it because it was outside your scope? That would make your statement incorrect. I am surprised the underwrite didn't accept that.

Define the basis of your conclusion, and then state the conclusion. "Based on the information reviewed during this assesment, the addition does not impair the structural integrity of the existing home."

Maybe this is too nit picky, but "is impairing" doesn't help anybody with anything. Maybe there wasn't any snow on the roof the day you made that statement. Maybe it had impaired it in the past, and will impair it in the future.

 

[Ron]

Because of the limitations of a scope of such assessments, and absent being able to analyze the structure for cost and time reasons, there must be caveats and limitations in the language of the report. It is not (or should not be) an unqualified "yes" or "no". Any requirements for specific language should have been given prior to the engagement, giving you a chance to accept or decline the engagement. If there is anything unclear about your statements, you have an obligation to clarify those as your end readers might have no technical background, as others have noted. This is common in condition assessments.

Conversely, I agree with dik. If you have done a good technical assessment and have presented that in such a manner that a non-technical person could reasonably understand it, and you have covered your liability, then your report stands. If they want a clarification you can issue a supplement, taking care that your supplement does not conflict with your original.

Be careful with some of their "standard" language. Those little paragraphs they want included can sometimes cause your liability to skyrocket.

 

[GregLocock]

I gave wadavis a star for his second alternative, specify what you did, and what you found from doing that, and point out the absence of heavyweight in-depth analysis.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[concretemasonry]

There is no legal requirement that says the professional disagrees with has to something that the lender is not comfortable with and must provide since their are other lenders, but it may be a time constraint or a cost problem. There other choices for the owner to make since there are many firms/people willing to make a living/profit for services and/or funding.

This not a structural answer, but based on common problems when people are concerned about their liability. Very often it is a result of anticipated results and previous promised or commitments.

Dick

Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.

 

[dik]

Reports are easily understandable by most people, but are technically correct... if they are challenged, they will likely be challenged by technical people. There was nothing in my postings that my reports were not 'readable'... I didn't know that there were technical Swahiliis (sp?)... the importance of a report is communication, and a big part of that is understanding...

You can sign and seal anything you want, and at the end of the day, you have to be prepared to defend your submission... Using the line, "The client wanted me to write it this way", and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee...

Thanks Ron

Dik

 

[steellion]

You have to write the report in a way that accurately reflects your scope of work for the project. Do not bow to the pressure of the underwriters to make absolute assertions regarding the integrity of the project that you know as an engineer that you cannot make. Phrases such as "based on our limited visual evaluation...", "based on information provided..." and "the structure appeared to be..." are your friends and accurately reflect your ability to evaluate the structure and effectively limit your liability.