Putting a plug on an HPWC (Code Violations and Insurance)

[wk057]

I called my insurance company and explained to them I was having a debate with someone about coverage and had a hypothetical question.

"If I have wiring for a new outlet professionally installed, then I change the breaker to a larger size than is permitted by code, then I run a load on that outlet larger than permitted by the circuit, and I eventually burn my house down, am I covered?"
"No."

I also contacted a friend who is an attorney for an insurance company in NJ and asked the same. "No."

Both said it isn't the mismatched load that is the issue, it's me modifying the breaker size to something that was known to be incorrect that was the issue. My friend said it definitely is excluded under faulty workmanship clause, which would normally fall back on the contractor's insurance who did the work, but in this case the owner modified it not the contractor.

I'm not an attorney, but when an attorney I've known since I was in grade school and a representative from my own insurance company tells me it wouldn't be covered, sorry, it's not covered no matter what some random person on the internet in another country says about it.

Edit: Why I even bothered at all is beyond me considering there is just going to be a useless rebuttal from @Canuck saying that both my insurance company and attorney friend are wrong anyway. Such is the internet. lol.

 

[rlang59]

Edit: Why I even bothered at all is beyond me considering there is just going to be a useless rebuttal from @Canuck saying that both my insurance company and attorney friend are wrong anyway. Such is the internet. lol.

Nothing to add but thought this was a good place to drop this in jest :smile::

xkcd: Duty Calls

 

[Canuck]

there is just going to be a useless rebuttal from @Canuck

Come on now, you may not agree with me but my rebuttals are not "useless". I have got private messages from people thanking me for alerting them to concerns with clauses in insurance policies. We can disagree with each other without resorting to such comments.

rLang59, that comic is hilarious. It really is me and I have lived that actual conversation with my wife!

 

[wk057]

Come on now, you may not agree with me but my rebuttals are not "useless". I have got private messages from people thanking me for alerting them to concerns with clauses in insurance policies. We can disagree with each other without resorting to such comments.

The "useless" part I was waiting on was you trying to explain how both my insurance company and attorney friend were in some way wrong or something along those lines. Admittedly, pleasantly surprised to see that is not the case, so, thanks.

 

[rlang59]

rLang59, that comic is hilarious. It really is me and I have lived that actual conversation with my wife!

I'm sure most of us can relate to that comic, that's why I just had to post it here.

 

[Canuck]

The "useless" part I was waiting on was you trying to explain how both my insurance company and attorney friend were in some way wrong or something along those lines. Admittedly, pleasantly surprised to see that is not the case, so, thanks.

My first comment about this issue, in the related thread, was not to rely on what an insurer tells you about coverage. Of course, your insurer told you there was no coverage, did you really expect a different answer? Yes, they will tell you to do what you said and they will provide you with coverage. Ha!

With regard to your lawyer friend, please PM me, or ask me to PM you, and I will give you my name and law firm phone number, and I will call him to discuss. Or he can call me. If he knows anything about insurance law, he will agree with me, and I will bet you $1 I will be right. I'd rather bet you more, but I like you and don't want to take your money. Did you give your lawyer friend my examples of the "faulty workmanship" exclusion clause in my past post and did he disagree with me? If so, he must have not taken Insurance 101. I live and breathe this stuff every day, for the past 20+ years. I know this stuff inside and out, backwards and forwards.

But please don't get me wrong. I like the fact that you are challenging me and you are right to comply with the code. Please just don't try to tell me what claims are covered and what claims are not covered, when I have run numerous trials on this issue -- on behalf of insurers! Here's the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue, our highest court in the land, saying that defective workmanship, in itself, gives rise to coverage. I disagree being an insurance company lawyer - I say you need an "act or occurrence" but our highest court finds faulty workmanship in itself!!! to be an occurrence, giving rise to coverage if it triggers a covered peril:

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada - SCC Cases (Lexum)

I can cite you American cases too. Can you cite one case?

I look forward to hearing from your lawyer friend since he will agree with me -- there's no doubt about that. Hopefully you will bet me $1 on this, even though I won't take your money.

My wife is calling me and I have told her how funny it is, that I have to read her a comic (above), and she says "who are writing to, and what about?" I said "someone is wrong on the internet!" .... lol

 

[wk057]

My first comment about this issue, in the related thread, was not to rely on what an insurer tells you about coverage. Of course, your insurer told you there was no coverage, did you really expect a different answer? Yes, they will tell you to do what you said and they will provide you with coverage. Ha!

With regard to your lawyer friend, please PM me, or ask me to PM you, and I will give you my name and law firm phone number, and I will call him to discuss. Or he can call me. If he knows anything about insurance law, he will agree with me, and I will bet you $1 I will be right. I'd rather bet you more, but I like you and don't want to take your money. Did you give your lawyer friend my examples of the "faulty workmanship" exclusion clause in my past post and did he disagree with me? If so, he must have not taken Insurance 101. I live and breathe this stuff every day, for the past 20+ years. I know this stuff inside and out, backwards and forwards.

But please don't get me wrong. I like the fact that you are challenging me and you are right to comply with the code. Please just don't try to tell me what claims are covered and what claims are not covered, when I have run numerous trials on this issue -- on behalf of insurers! Here's the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue, our highest court in the land, saying that defective workmanship, in itself, gives rise to coverage. I disagree being an insurance company lawyer - I say you need an "act or occurrence" but our highest court finds faulty workmanship in itself!!! to be an occurrence, giving rise to coverage if it triggers a covered peril:

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada - SCC Cases (Lexum)

I can cite you American cases too. Can you cite one case?

I look forward to hearing from your lawyer friend since he will agree with me -- there's no doubt about that. Hopefully you will bet me $1 on this, even though I won't take your money.

My wife is calling me and I have told her how funny it is, that I have to read her a comic (above), and she says "who are writing to, and what about?" I said "someone is wrong on the internet!" .... lol

Ah well, such is the internet. I'm definitely not going to tell my friend, "Hey, this guy on the internet from Canada wants to waste your time trying to convince you you're wrong about my insurance coverage in the hypothetical we spent 45 seconds on the other night, even though you've worked as an attorney for [insurance company name here] for about a decade."

The wording in my policy actually is not ambiguous at all when it comes to the exclusions, IMO, including the one for faulty workmanship and related exclusions. I've read it cover to cover and there is definitely no way I can see to interpret it in the way you've described. But, since I'm not an attorney I asked one I trust clarify (as I posted earlier). He disagrees with your interpretation, agrees with mine, and that is pretty much the end of that discussion. I mean seriously, there is no way I'm going to take the word of someone on an internet forum over the word of a man I've known nearly my entire life that actually happens to work in the field in question. There is just no way. I'm not going to bother wasting time looking up case law or anything along those lines, either. That's the kind of knowledge I rely on an attorney for.

There is pretty much nothing you can say or do that will get me to take your point of view over the person I know and trust in real life short of you actually buying a house in the USA in my area, getting the same insurance policy I have, doing the not-to-code electrical work in question that would result in a fire, having said fire happen, getting the claim paid, letting me witness all of this, and then showing me the check and related material. Then again, if you actually went through all of that effort based on my post.... you're probably a bit crazy anyway. Since that's never actually going to happen, I'm not really going to argue about that anymore and stick to my own areas of expertise instead.

At the very least I suggest people actually contact their own attorneys before acting on random legal advise found on an internet forum...

In any case, even if there were ambiguity on the insurance issue, here is how I see this whole thing:


If I do my work to code, here is the list of the potential problems I will have down the road:

• Safe and functional equipment long term
• No potential related battles with insurance companies regardless of policy exclusions
• (Oh, I was supposed to be listing problems...)

If I don't do the work to code, modify work that was to code, etc (as at least one poster here has done):

• Potential fire hazard resulting in...
  • ... potential loss of property
  • ... potential injury/electrocution
  • ... potential loss of life
• Short term functionality of equipment
  • Eventually the setup will fail either mildly or catastrophically.
• Potential issues with any future work/inspections to other projects at the property
• Potential insurance issues
  • Whether or not they will eventually pay the claim is less relevant when there is more room for argument/ambiguity

Hmm.... *scratches head*...... such a tough choice. </sarcasm>
Headaches? Or no headaches? ... Simple or complicated? ... Personally, I'll choose no headaches any day.

 

[Canuck]

Yes, you are right. I agree with you. Do work to code! I said that from the start. We agree with each other on that point 100%! But if, by chance, you do not, or perhaps you hired a trade who breached the code, and you have a fire or some other loss, and an insurance company denies your claim, don't take their denial as fact! Seek legal advice!

Better yet, read your insurance policy right now, and if it excludes coverage for code breaches, get one that does not!

Thanks for the good debate, wk057!

 

[wk057]

[If] you have a fire or some other loss, and an insurance company denies your claim, don't take their denial as fact! Seek legal advice!

This I personally would do whether or not I agreed with their decision to deny or not, simply because they denied the claim. Seems a lot of insurance companies will just deny up front and hope you don't argue...

Thanks for the good debate, wk057!

Same. Cheers!

 

[SW2Fiddler]

I am trying to get my remodeler to follow the NEC in moving our 240V installed oven, much less get a permit/inspection. I am tiring of the fight and even my wife is pointing out that subcontractor after subcontractor is saying they never pull permits, construction or electrical. Yes if you ask the City, they say that several aspects of this remodel require permits!
I don't doubt that a lot of work here in the Wild West is done under the radar, but gosh darn it, I want it done right! I REALLY want house perils to be covered.
I have read the home policy, it narrows down to a dozen words which I could see lawyers disagreeing on. (what ELSE is new)
Well, we have been without a kitchen for months, and if I remain outnumbered I am going to run out of righteous willpower ...eventually!
If the next holdup is me standing my ground on getting the permit (some cabinetry is already installed over what would need to be inspected), even though the permit is written in the remodel contract... I don't know.
The Internet Arguments here are not helping to clarify it for me, as I hoped they would. The topic literally Hits Home.

 

[bollar]

I am trying to get my remodeler to follow the NEC in moving our 240V installed oven, much less get a permit/inspection. I am tiring of the fight and even my wife is pointing out that subcontractor after subcontractor is saying they never pull permits, construction or electrical. Yes if you ask the City, they say that several aspects of this remodel require permits!
I don't doubt that a lot of work here in the Wild West is done under the radar, but gosh darn it, I want it done right! I REALLY want house perils to be covered.
I have read the home policy, it narrows down to a dozen words which I could see lawyers disagreeing on. (what ELSE is new)
Well, we have been without a kitchen for months, and if I remain outnumbered I am going to run out of righteous willpower ...eventually!
If the next holdup is me standing my ground on getting the permit (some cabinetry is already installed over what would need to be inspected), even though the permit is written in the remodel contract... I don't know.
The Internet Arguments here are not helping to clarify it for me, as I hoped they would. The topic literally Hits Home.

Well... Doing the job right (which includes pulling permits if required) is what often separates the price of the bids.

Does your remodeler have a Master Electrician on-staff? He probably can't get a permit without it.

 

[breser]

Back in 2002 I had a generator installed. The electrician who did the work didn't get a permit or get it inspected. I thought it was kinda weird but I didn't worry about it since I figured he knew if we needed a permit or not. Everything worked just fine, never had a problem.

Fast forward to last year and I was getting an HPWC and NEMA 14-50 put in. I looked into using an electrician but the cost seemed high (in retrospect, the HPWC is a pain, it wasn't high). So a friend of mine that used to work as electrician came over and we did it together. I got a permit and got it inspected. Inspector looked at our install and had no problems.

But he noticed the generator install and started asking questions about it. Turns out it wasn't done right, ground was bonded to neutral when it shouldn't have been creating a scenario where it could backfeed. He made the electrician get a permit to fix it, come out and do the work and then came back to inspect it. The electrician didn't charge me a dime.

Moral of the story is, find out what permits are required and make them get them.

 

[wk057]

In NC you need permits for nearly any electrical work. You can't take the dead front off of a panel without a permit basically. Need permits for repairs, changes, additions, anything electrical.

Best to just get them, too. The permits are cheap and seem like more of a hassle for the county than they are for me.

 

[Danal]

Darn!

This looks like it it somewhat resolved... and it has been one of the most entertaining things I've read lately. Trying to figure out how to pour gasoline on this fire. But I won't.

By the way, what is the EV equivalent of "gasoline on fire"???




All kidding aside, thanks to both WK057 and Canuck. Seriously. This kind of debate is really good to expose multiple points of view. I often find myself in the XKCD comic, on one side or another. So it is very nice to watch, and read, and be entertained, and to learn as well. Thanks guys!

 

[FlasherZ]

I am trying to get my remodeler to follow the NEC in moving our 240V installed oven, much less get a permit/inspection. I am tiring of the fight and even my wife is pointing out that subcontractor after subcontractor is saying they never pull permits, construction or electrical. Yes if you ask the City, they say that several aspects of this remodel require permits!

What does the city think of your remodeler failing to apply for permits? Generally, most cities will issue a pretty steep fine to the contractor.

I live in a county where you need a general building permit, but no specific permits are required and noinspections are done (the building permit is basically a trigger for the tax assessor). The county to the east doesn't even have building permits (my contractor insisted he needed one, even went to the courthouse to try to get one - they just laughed).

 

[Chris TX]

By the way, what is the EV equivalent of "gasoline on fire"???

That would be "gasoline on an electrical fire"

 

[scottm]

text box

By the way, what is the EV equivalent of "gasoline on fire"???

Lion cathode thermal runaway