75w bulb in 60w socket?

Page 2 of 4  


Actually, it means *exactly* that. That's the entire purpose of insurance, to "pay when something goes wrong."
(Did you think it pays when things go *right* ??)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
graced this newsgroup with:

Well I'm not so sure an insurance company would willingly pay for damages caused by an owner knowingly violating code - which is exactly what we were discussing here. Everything I've read so far indicates that they would, up to a certain point perhaps and they may in fact dispute the claim - but it does sound like they will pay.
Personally if I owned an insurance company I would fight payment on a claim if the insured reported damage that was caused by code violation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eigenvector wrote:
<snip>

Plaintiffs' lawyers love that kind of talk.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
this newsgroup with:

yup. Insurance companies, in order to do business in a state HAS to cover "acts of stupidity". Otherwise, they could pretty much nullify any policy that's written and the mortgage companies would have a cow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
graced

I'm gonna keep this one open and try to catch my agent tommorrow.
Something about this doesn't ring true, willful negligence (the item in question) just doesn't seem "accidental" nor "an act of stupidity".
I've been wrong before so I won't worry about it until I hear what my agent has to say on the matter. "Will the willful deliberate misuse of a product that results in damage to my house be covered under my policy?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Might I suggest that you mask your caller-ID information (*67) and not identify yourself? You probably don't want to plant any seeds of doubt in your agent's mind about what you might be up to.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 03 May 2007 13:46:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Note that *67 will not work if you call a toll-free number. These use ANI instead of CID, and it can not be blocked.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"If I store gasoline next to my gas water heater and the resulting accident damages my home will I be covered?" The answer from my agent is - absolutely full coverage. I must admit to goes against all common sense, for the insurance company to cover an accident that I could cause by ignoring 2 product warning stickers. Two stickers that are quite prominent.
As much as I feel that this shouldn't be covered, I'm certainly not going to fight it. Now they did go at great lengths to mention that if could be demonstrated that I acted with full knowledge of potential consequences at that point the policy would NOT cover damages.
The trick now is to make sure my house doesn't catch fire for another year or so, else my agent may question the accident.
graced

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.. which is why I suggested that you should not identify yourself, nor allow your caller-ID info to come through, when you placed that call...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
Actually, what your agent says really is of no consequence -- what are the conditions on the policy itself (see the short section I posted from a State Farm policy earlier).
The answer will be what the insurance company actually does in the event of such a situation. If, after a fire resulting in a large claim the investigation confirmed such negligence, it is quite likely they might at least initially reject the claim based on such a clause in the policy (again, if it were in your policy).
The actual court case from which that clause was pulled was even more egregious in that the fire was identified as a case of arson. The claim was eventually upheld, but it was on a technicality in where the restrictive clauses were in the contract so that they were able to be interpreted as ambiguous as to whether they covered the particular situation or not so the court ruled in the plaintiff's favor on that basis. If the restrictions had been in the contract specifically for the subsection under which the claim was made, the defendent's (insurance company) postion would have been upheld.
Upshot is, know your policy throughly and don't rely on the insurance company to bail you out of something stupid -- just may not happen! (And I know you're not planning on it, just the hypothetical. Just a cautionary note that it doesn't always work out for the insured in such a situation.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it's not. Putting a 75W bulb in a fixture rated 60W is not, in fact, a code violation. It's stupid, it's hazardous, it's a violation of the UL listing -- but it's not a violation of the NEC.
Furthermore, unless there is specific language in the insurance contract to the contrary, the insurer pays whenever there is a covered loss, *regardless* of the cause.

Quite frequently, various people assert here in this newsgroup that insurance companies will deny claims for fires caused by non-Code-compliant wiring. They are also frequently challenged to substantiate those assertions with cites of specific instances in which this has actually happened.
So far, I haven't seen any such substantiation here. Have you?

If you were my insurer, I'd have my lawyer point out that there isn't any language in the contract that permits you to deny the claim on that basis.
And you'd wind up paying my legal fees in addition to my insurance claim.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

... and maybe even punitive damages, depending where you are.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 1, 7:04 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

...
Well, maybe, maybe not--as in most things depends on the details of both the policy and the incident (and, often, so far as the particular judge/jury hearing the suit if it gets that far). As an example of language that may be found in some policies (this from a State Farm policy I found online) the following language could be in an aggressive interpretion bar a claim from a fire attributed to the use of the oversize bulb:
"The policy also contained several exclusions barring coverage for damage to property consisting of or caused by:
8. Any substantial change or increase in hazard, if changed or increased by any means within the control or knowledge of an insured person.
9. Intentional or criminal acts of or at the direction of any insured person, if the loss that occurs:
1. may be reasonably expected to result from such acts; or..."
It seems that knowingly using a 75W bulb in a 60W-rated fixture _could_ be construed as meeting either of the above, shifting the onus onto the determination of whether it constituted a "substantial" increase or could have "reasonably" been foreseen. (Depends on what the meaning of "is" is... :) )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Insurance companies can get in trouble that way.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, interestingly, the summary of the legal case in which that language was in question was a loss for the insurance company not because of the restriction itself, but only because of very technical detail in how, precisely, the restriction was structured inside the rest of the contract. That is, the appeals court determined that there was a possible ambiguity in the interpretation of the clause's applicability in the given circumstance, not that the clause itself was the problem.
I'm sure the legal beagles of the company were at work the next morning in attempting to perfect the language and form in all future contracts.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just use compact flouresent bulbs. They put out greater light with lower power use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But read the label. Some are not to be enclosed. The one I have states "use only in portable lamps that have a lampshade"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why a lampshade? As opposed to a globe, or so the UV won't shine in your eyes. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lampshade will allow air to move over the hot base. Globes just retain heat and let it build.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They make less UV than is present in an equivalent amount of daylight, even an equivalent amount of daylight that has been through window glass.
I used to see CFs saying use only in lamps with lampshades. I think the reason is that they were prone to having their ballasts overheat in most other lamps. This was mainly 15 or more years ago, mainly before CFs with electronic ballasts started being available around 1991 or so.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.