When a Third-Party Inspector Approves Defective Work: Why You Still Need a Forensic Expert Witness

In many Texas jurisdictions, the responsibility for residential building inspections has quietly shifted away from municipal employees and toward private companies under contract. Cities like Melissa, Anna, Celina, and numerous others have adopted models where firms such as Bureau Veritas or MetroCode conduct inspections on the city’s behalf. While this is legally permitted under IRC Section R104.1, the distinction is critical: approval by a third-party inspector is not a guarantee of code compliance. It does not absolve a builder of their responsibility to meet the minimum standards of the adopted code, nor does it offer homeowners meaningful protection when those standards are ignored.

As an expert witness who is both ICC-certified as a Residential Combination Inspector and licensed as a Professional Inspector by the Texas Real Estate Commission, I routinely inspect homes that were “approved” by third-party inspectors but are in clear violation of the International Residential Code (IRC), National Electrical Code (NEC), or other governing standards. The builder’s defense in these cases is often predictable: “It passed inspection.” That argument may sound persuasive to a jury, but in practice—and in law—it is irrelevant. The code does not say, “compliance is whatever the inspector says it is.” It says that the builder shall build in accordance with the code as adopted, full stop.

Third-party inspectors, unlike municipal employees, are typically under contract to process large volumes of inspections quickly. In high-growth areas, it’s not unusual for a single inspector to sign off on dozens of homes a day. As a result, defects are missed. Some of the most common violations I identify—after the home has passed final inspection—include unsealed duct systems in violation of the energy code, missing or incorrectly installed window flashing, incomplete GFCI protection in garages or bathrooms, undersized attic access openings, inadequate stair and guard rail configurations, and structural framing that fails to meet minimum fastening or bracing requirements. Each of these deficiencies poses life safety, durability, or performance risks and can often be tied directly to a deviation from specific code provisions.

The key legal principle is this: approval by a third-party inspector does not shift liability away from the builder. Under the IRC, responsibility for compliance rests with the contractor, not the inspector. In fact, the commentary to IRC R104.1 makes it clear that inspectors are empowered to enforce the code, but they are not empowered to alter it, waive it, or redefine it. Municipal contracts with third-party firms do not transfer the duty of care to the inspector. The builder remains responsible for constructing the home in accordance with all applicable code requirements, regardless of what the inspection record says.

This is why forensic expert testimony is essential in construction defect litigation. As an expert, my role is not to second-guess the inspector but to establish, using documentation, photography, and code citation, whether the construction complied with the actual requirements in force at the time the work was performed. I provide clear, court-ready reports that explain not only what is wrong, but why it is wrong, with direct reference to the code, manufacturer’s published instructions, or consensus standards like ASTM or APA publications.

Attorneys who handle construction defect cases know that inspectors are rarely deposed, and third-party firms typically claim municipal immunity or contractual limitations. The builder, however, cannot hide behind their inspector’s approval. If the construction is defective, if it fails to meet code, and if that failure caused damage or diminished value, then the builder is liable. A third-party stamp does not protect them, and in court, it will not hold.

My expert opinions are built on more than 13,000 residential inspections, over 100 litigation support engagements, 25 depositions, and published articles on brick veneer, lot drainage, interior doors, attached garages, and more. I do not work for builders and never have. My only role is to evaluate residential construction for code compliance, identify defects, and explain their implications in language that judges, juries, arbitrators, and mediators can understand.

If you are litigating a construction defect case and the builder’s defense rests on the claim that the home “passed inspection,” I invite you to contact me. Passing inspection does not mean the work complies with the code. That’s a question of fact, and one that requires a qualified expert to answer. Let me help you get to the truth.