For future reference, when writing the original report, you should have called for a roof inspection. Never mind that they already had one done. Once you submit your report to the lender, then the UW would have taken it from there and your work (and liability) would have ended there.
Suppose the roof inspector didn't know what he was doing, we should never sign off on other experts inspections, that is the UW's responsiblity and liability. For all we know it could be a "skippy" roofer stating whatever the person who hired him wanted him to say. Many agents have "skippy" contractors in their pockets for this exact reason. Also, lenders keep "blacklists" of contractors, just like they do on appraisers where they will not take their word on any repair issue. I would hate to be basing a repair issue from a contrator who ended up being on every lenders blacklist. With this example, suppose the roofer was hired by the buyers agent and was coached into calling for a new roof. The seller might file a lawsuit, if he finds an "expert" who disagrees. You would be caught right in the middle of it all unless proceeding in the fashion I explained in the first paragraph.
Now to the compliance final question for this assignment. Who knows, the seller or sellers flunky brother in-law could be the one installing the new roof with faulty workmanship. Do you really want to take on that liability to determine the quality of installation? I would put on the compliance report that the roofer who installed the roof should submit the proper paperwork to the UW with the required warranty, this way your liability is off the hook and it is back where it should be with a licensed contractor and UW.
