Most all inspectors write into their reports that the inspection is "visual", "not technically exhaustive", and limited to "direct observations". They also comment, "this is not a code compliance inspection". Yet time after time I read where they contradict themselves in their reports.

When an inspector is challenged in a court of law, the first tactic of the opposing attorney is to destroy your credibility. They will hire an expert witness to review your report as to assumptions you made via the comments you wrote and trust me, they do not care if the comment came with the software you are using, you wrote the comment into your report, period!

Here are a couple of my favorite Stupid Comments.

1. The inspector describes how an asphalt shingle is manufactured (technically exhaustive and direct observation) and in the last line he writes, "covered with GRAVEL". Gravel, how about mineral granules?
2. Inspector writes: "The visible portions or the conventional STACKED framing are in acceptable condition, and would conform to the standards of the year in which they were installed."  I have two questions; how did the inspector "directly observe" the stacked framing and how does the inspector know they conform to the standards in the year it was built?
3. Here is x-ray vision, "Poured in Place slab concrete, 8 inches or more thick."
4. The inspector discovers lead water piping. The inspector goes on to write; "Lead can be a risk for small children when it is ingested. You can manage your own usage and risk by running the water before it is ingested." "....... replacement may be necessary." WOW!! Talk about liability! I would have written; Presents of lead water piping was observed, lead water piping is a proven health risk. Replacement is required.
   

More real case examples are located in the members section titled "Stupid Comments 2".