A Sacramento couple is suing a local home inspection company for allegedly failing to disclose significant structural defects in their new home. Teal O. Miller and Eliason Austin filed the complaint against M & P Property Services, Inc., doing business as Sacramento Home Inspections Plus, and its owner Michael Thick, along with Republic Underwriters Insurance Company, on August 1, 2024, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.
The plaintiffs claim that during a home inspection on September 6, 2019, Thick failed to report numerous major foundation issues at their property located at 93 45th Street, Sacramento. According to the complaint, Thick assured them that a visible crack in the stucco was unrelated to any foundational problems and attributed it to a poorly executed repair job. However, subsequent inspections revealed extensive structural defects that were allegedly apparent during the initial inspection but were not disclosed by Thick.
Miller and Austin assert that they relied on Thick's professional judgment when they decided to purchase the house for $585,000 without demanding any repairs. They allege that if they had been informed about the true condition of the foundation, they would have either negotiated a lower price or refrained from buying the property altogether. The plaintiffs discovered these hidden defects only after hiring Nor Cal Ram-Jack for an evaluation on August 14, 2023. The evaluation revealed that part of the house had sunk nearly three inches and required extensive repairs costing $53,565.76.
The lawsuit accuses M & P Property Services and its owner of professional negligence under California Business and Professions Code §7196. It claims that Thick breached his duty by failing to disclose several critical issues such as multiple vertical cracks in the foundation, shimming of parts of the house frame from the foundation using cinder blocks, substandard blocking under floors, and other serious flaws. The plaintiffs also accuse Republic Underwriters Insurance Company of denying their claim related to these undisclosed defects.
In addition to professional negligence, Miller and Austin are suing for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. They argue that Thick's failure to disclose these material facts was intentional and aimed at inducing them into purchasing the property quickly without raising concerns about its condition. The complaint states that this concealment led them to overpay for a house requiring significant unanticipated repairs.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for economic losses incurred due to Defendants' alleged negligence and misrepresentation. They are also asking for consequential damages resulting from these actions as well as restitution for any payments made for negligently performed services. Additionally, they request prejudgment interest on all applicable damages from the date of injury or loss until judgment is rendered. Lastly, Miller and Austin seek reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with this lawsuit.
Representing themselves pro per (without an attorney), Teal O. Miller and Eliason Austin have brought this case before Judge M. Chapman under Case ID: 24 OTs 381.