Disclaim It? Or Explain It?
Why “just disclaim it” isn’t teaching, and how inspectors can communicate with clarity.
Some words in our profession carry more baggage than we realize. Disclaimer is one of them. I hear it often (too often) tossed around in classrooms and continuing education sessions like a magic wand. An instructor flashes a photo of something they don’t want to explain and says, “Just disclaim it.”
But here’s the problem: “disclaim it” doesn’t teach the student anything. It doesn’t show them how to write a limitation, how to communicate risk, or how to align with the Standard of Practice. It just models avoidance. At its worst, it teaches the next generation of inspectors to hide behind words they don’t even fully understand.
What a Disclaimer Really Is
A disclaimer, properly defined, is a legal device. It is a statement that attempts to limit liability. Lawyers use disclaimers to narrow warranty obligations, waive responsibility, or clarify risk. A classic example is: “This inspection is not technically exhaustive and cannot predict future performance.”
That’s a disclaimer: it limits what the inspector is responsible for.
What a Disclaimer Is Not
Here’s where the confusion creeps in. Inspectors (and far too many instructors) use the word “disclaimer” as if it covers anything they want to walk away from. But an actual disclaimer is not:
An exclusion: something outside the agreed scope. (“Evaluation of swimming pools is outside the scope of this inspection.”)
A limitation: something you couldn’t inspect because of conditions. (“The roof was snow-covered and could not be inspected.”)
A safety restriction: something you could not inspect without unreasonable personal risk. (“The attic framing could not be evaluated due to unsafe access conditions.”)
Each of those is different. None of them require or benefit from being called a “disclaimer.”
Teaching Students the Right Tool for the Job
When an instructor waves away a photo with “disclaim it,” they’re not serving the student. They’re teaching students to think defensively instead of learning how to pick up the right tool and craft a clear, useful comment for the client.
Sometimes the right tool is a true disclaimer: a simple boundary-setting statement such as, “This inspection is not technically exhaustive and cannot predict future performance.” Other times it’s an exclusion, grounded in the pre-inspection agreement: “Evaluation of swimming pools is outside the scope of this inspection.” And still other times, it’s a limitation tied to conditions at the property: “The roof was snow-covered and could not be inspected.”
Then there are situations where the best tool is a referral: “The masonry chimney and wood-burning fireplace are beyond the scope of a visual home inspection. Current standards (NFPA 211) call for a Level II chimney inspection whenever a property is sold. This inspection should be performed by a certified chimney sweep using appropriate tools and methods.”
Each of these communicates something different. Lumping them all under “disclaim it” blunts their meaning. Students deserve to see the distinctions, because those distinctions are what protect both the inspector and the client.
Knowing the Difference: Disclaimers, Exclusions, Limitations, and Referrals
Disclaimer: Sets broad boundaries of responsibility; limits liability.“This inspection is not technically exhaustive and cannot predict future performance.”Always part of the pre-inspection agreement and scope-of-work language. Use sparingly in the report to remind clients of inherent limitations.
Exclusion: Defines something not covered by the inspection. “Evaluation of swimming pools is outside the scope of this home inspection.” When the system/component is clearly listed as outside scope in the SOP or agreement.
Limitation: Documents a condition that prevented full evaluation.“The roof was snow-covered and could not be inspected.” When access, visibility, or safety conditions restricted inspection.
Referral: Directs the client to the appropriate professional for further evaluation.“The masonry chimney and wood-burning fireplace are beyond the scope of a visual home inspection. Current standards (NFPA 211) call for a Level II chimney inspection whenever a property is sold. This inspection should be performed by a certified chimney sweep using appropriate tools and methods.” When you see something that clearly requires deeper expertise, tools, or testing beyond a home inspection.
Note on NFPA 211
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requires a Level II chimney inspection whenever a property with a fireplace changes ownership. A Level II inspection goes beyond a flashlight look up the flue — it includes a video scan of the entire flue lining, inspection of accessible portions of the chimney, clearances, and proper construction. This standard is widely recognized, and in some states it is written directly into real estate law.
My Own Learning Curve
I’ll admit, in my early years as a home inspector I didn’t understand why so many instructors emphasized chimney inspections. It felt excessive at first. But after taking multiple classes on fireplaces and chimneys, I began to see the critical nature of this referral. Chimney failures can be catastrophic. Fire, carbon monoxide, structural collapse, and yet most of the risk is hidden from view. That’s why NFPA 211 set the Level II standard, and why I now make this referral without hesitation.
What do we see here?
We see the word disclaimer borrowed from the legal world, dragged into our profession, and stretched until it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. We see instructors using it as a crutch instead of a teaching tool. And we see inspectors repeating it without stopping to ask what it actually says or doesn’t say about the inspection they performed.
In other words: disclaimers don’t protect the client, and they don’t really protect the inspector either. They just disguise poor communication. And the profession deserves better.