Opinion ID: 856802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roberts (Home Inspector)

Text: The district court granted summary judgment to Roberts on six claims. R. 141 (Op. & Order at 25–27) (Page ID #2086–88). The Milners now appeal two claims: negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Appellants’ Br. at 30–31. With respect to the negligent-misrepresentation claim, the district court found that Roberts had not misrepresented the fact that he was a certified home inspector. R. 141 (Op. & Order at 26) (Page ID #2087). Likewise, the district court found that 6 For the same reasons, the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of Biggs on the fraudulent-concealment claim. The Milners can identify no evidence that they justifiably relied on any statements by Biggs concerning mold, nor any evidence that Biggs knew of, and therefore could have concealed, evidence of moisture damage. 13 No. 12-3526 Milner, et al. v. Biggs, et al. Roberts did not misleadingly indicate affiliation with ASHI by including with his inspection reports ASHI documents, because those documents stated that “[d]istribution of this material is not an indication of ASHI Membership.” Id. (quoting R. 83-2 (ASHI Standards of Practice at 2) (Page ID #862)). Finally, even assuming that the inclusion of ASHI materials amounted to a misrepresentation, the district court found that the Milners could not have relied on this information, because the Milners admit that they did not read Roberts’s inspection report before the closing. Id. We first address Roberts’s qualifications. The Milners do not deny that Roberts is an ITAcertified inspector. Instead, they reassert throughout their appeal that Roberts was not an ASHIcertified inspector.7 However, they offer no argument as to why this fact—that Roberts is not a member of ASHI—would make it false to assert that Roberts was a certified home inspector. Although ASHI’s standards are more exclusive, Roberts is nevertheless certified. Ohio does not require home inspectors to be certified, either by ASHI or any other organization. The Milners did not inquire into Roberts’s credentials, although Natasha Milner testified that she assumed an organization like ASHI exists to which Roberts belonged. This assumption alone is insufficient to render false Roberts’s actual certification; there was no misrepresentation. Neither did Roberts misrepresent his qualifications by providing ASHI materials, because the materials themselves state that “[d]istribution of this material is not an indication of ASHI membership.” R. 83-2 (ASHI Standard of Practice at 2) (Page ID #862). Even it this were a misrepresentation, the Milners admit 7 Roberts testified that his training with and certification by ITA qualifies him to join ASHI once he completes 250 inspections. R. 101 (Roberts Dep. at 18) (Page ID #1163). At the time, Roberts had completed approximately 80 inspections. Id. at 19 (Page ID #1163). 14 No. 12-3526 Milner, et al. v. Biggs, et al. that they did not look at the report—they viewed only a one-page summary—until after the deed was conveyed. R. 70-1 (Natasha Milner Dep. at 189–90) (Page ID #635–36). Thus, they could not have relied on the ASHI materials as an implied representation of Roberts’s membership therein. The Milners cannot claim that Roberts misrepresented, either fraudulently or negligently, his credentials. Accordingly, the district court correctly found that there was no genuine dispute on this claim. With respect to the inspection and inspection report, the district court found again that, because the Milners did not read Roberts’s inspection report, there was no genuine dispute that they did not rely on it. R. 141 (Op. & Order at 26) (Page ID #2087). Moreover, the district court found that Roberts accurately described the house to the extent that he could inspect it, that his report made clear that he had not inspected inaccessible areas, and that any reliance on his limited inspection for more than was stated in the report was unreasonable as a matter of law. Id. at 26–27 (Page ID #2087–88). The Milners offer two arguments on appeal. First, they claim that they relied on the inspection report’s one-page summary, which Roberts himself prepared. Appellants’ Br. at 30–31. Second, they argue that there remains a genuine dispute as to whether a diligent home inspector would have discovered the moisture damage. Id. at 31. To the extent that the Milners’ theory of fraud argued on appeal concerns Roberts’s inspection, it is inconsistent with the fraud alleged in their complaint. A plaintiff “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The Milners’ complaint identifies as an instance of fraud only Roberts’s “oral and written representations to Plaintiffs that he is a certified home inspector.” R. 1-3 (Complaint at ¶ 145) (Page ID #22). The 15 No. 12-3526 Milner, et al. v. Biggs, et al. complaint does not allege that aspects of Roberts’s inspection were fraudulent. Accordingly, there is no claim for us to review with respect to whether Roberts fraudulently performed his inspection. Thus, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to Roberts on the entirety of the Milners’ fraud claim.