permit inspections

Page 4 of 7  
J. Clarke wrote:

Credibility......It is generally a good thing when someone purports something as fact that they have at least have some basis for the claim. Valid as they might be..... could be's, maybes and might happens probably should be acknowledged as such....... Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even if he did bolster his credibility with some type of verifiable fact, I'd be expecting some type of error in it solely because of his mercenary response. Even if most do consider self interest as a first thought, people who outwardly display it for all to see is a turn off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

I see. And I should care about my "credibility" with some character who I have never met, likely never will meet, who has no power to affect my life in even the most minuscule way, who can't recognize an opinion unless it's labelled as such, and who doesn't have the common courtesy to LET IT GO because?
Oh, and who they Hell are _you_ that I should care what _you_ think?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<plonk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:28:41 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

For california reference - re: mold damage restrictions see: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2587973/Mold-delineated-Insurance-Services-Office.html
You need to look at your policy - is it "broad form" or "special form". Each type of policy is different.
Also see: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0726P.pdf
One common exclusion that the insurance company may call on is "Damage caused by your own intentional or criminal acts ". It is part of most basic, broad, and special form policies.
There is also something called "ordinance and law coverage" which can be added to a policy to ensure that if something is NOT to code, the insurer is responsible to bring the repaired structure up to code at their expense. Without this coverage, YOU are responsible for bringing the structure up to code - the insurer pays only for repair to the original non-code compliant condition - and the job MUST meat code when reconstructed, so YOU ARE HOLDING THE BAG FOR A SUBSTANTIAL (possible) FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE. The insurer will only cover PART of the repairs - and you get to fight with them through the courts if you don't like their assessment. THIS IS FACT. Google "ordinance and law endorsement"
Also, many insurance companies today will NOT insre a house with knob and tube wiring - ANY knob and tube wiring - or aluminum wiring. Or a house with less than a 100 amp electrical service - or cast iron drain piping, or galvanized water pipes. Or "insul brick" siding, or wood heat,or a host of other "high risk"( in the insurer's eyes) features. These are "special exclusions" - and if an electrical fire or water damage claim is entered, and the adjusters find ANY of the above, whether contribuing to the damage or not, the entire claim CAN be denied. This is true because the insurance company did NOT agree to insure a house with these riks - and falsifying the application in ANY way can be used to deny coverage. SO - you need to ask your insurance company SPECIFICALLY if you have insurance coverage on your house if you do alterations yourself, and particularly if you do work without a permit or inspection.
I can tell you right now, insurance companies are NOT in the risk business, contrary to what you may believe. If you ask, they will, in all likelihood, demand a permit and inspection. If the insurance company requires an electrical inspection of your home as a precondition to insurance (which many, tody, do) then any non inspected modifications to the electrical system could legally be held against you in case of an electrical fire or malfunction. Same goes for plumbing. IF the insurance company requires an inspection or an afidavit stating the house meets the minimum standards they require for coverage and it does NOT meet those standards, coverage may be denied. If you do something to the house to cause it NOT to meet those standards, coverage can also be denied ( as can the priveledge of renewal).
I guess what it comes down to is, IF you are doing your own work, without permit or inspection, MAKE SURE the standard of workmanship is such that it WOULD pass inspection, and WOULD meet or excede the minimum standards required to get the required permit. If you do not, and your insurance form includes special exclusions/conditions,(which are common today) and you do not have an "ordinance and law endorsement" on an older home, you COULD have insurance coverage denied.
And if it is a siseable project - PAY THE DANGED PERMIT FEE and HAVE IT INSPECTED. It is a SMALL percentage of the cost of the project and it DOES protect you.
Another REAL danger is, say, a deck, built without permit and not to code, is involved in a personal injury claim (or worse yet, possibly, a death) your LIABILITY COVERAGE may not be in force. Something as simple as a dexk 2 inches higher above ground than the bylaw allows without a railing, or a railing 2 inches lower than required, or railing with the uprights too far apart, allowing a kid to get his head stuck, or to fall through --------.
You might be OK if it was built to code without a permit or inspection - but if you missed code you are in severe jeopardy financially.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:08:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Absolutly not. I'm confident I know the answer, I'm just trying to see if you can defend the position you have presented.

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

<plonk>
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you don't get a permit and inspection, the bogie man will get you. If we are going to scare people, let's scare them with real problems, not made up problems.
Look, I think permits and inspections are a good idea for the most part. All I'm trying to find out is if the "no permit, insurance won't pay" thing is fact or myth. You reported it as fact and I was just asking to know how you know. It really isn't an attack.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

I did not say "it is a fact". I expressed an opinion. If you need every opinion labelled as such before you will recognize it as an opinion you have something wrong with you.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are just guessing at things John.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As well, I've never had an insurance company request a CO or any other form of documentation of inspection processes to process a claim. I have seen insurance companies pay off on all sorts of wiring nightmares that would never pass even the most blind of inspections, homeowner bonehead practices (thawing out frozen pipes with a torch up in the floor joists, etc.). This whole insurance denial is much more FUD than it is anything else.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The point being that you did no such thing John.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are backing up an assertion John, with suspicions on your part. Though they seem logical in one sense, they don't align with real world practices. Insurance companies don't have as much wiggle room as you believe. They take the premium money so they are subject to many more laws that require them to pay.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Not true around here at least (Saskatchewan, Canada).
My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of construction, age of house, etc.
Hypothetically assuming what you say is true, how exactly would it be enforced? How would the insurance people know whether something was done by you or by someone else before you bought the house?
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

Huh? How do actuarial tables enter into paying off a claim? Actuarial tables are used to assess rates, not to determine damages or whether the company is going to pay off on a given claim.

How would you prove that you didn't do it? And suppose that you do it and it fails after you sell the house and the next owner's insurance company decides to come after _you_ for doing illegal and substandard work? Then what?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

My point is simply that they have no idea of the actual state of the building at the time that they insure it. Given that, there is no way for them to know whether any problems are due to work done by me vs. work done by others.

I don't need to...it's up to the insurance company to come up with a reason for them to not pay out. If the next owner's insurance company tries to come after me, they would have to prove that I did the work rather than one of the previous owners. Besides, they would have to prove that I *knew* there was something wrong, otherwise it's just simply chalked up to stupidity. My insurance agent explicity stated that homeowner stupidity was covered by the insurance.
Note...I'm not saying that this is how I would actually behave...in fact my own work as so far been permitted except for very minor stuff like rewiring outlets. I'm just saying that around here at least it would be *very* hard to get into trouble with the insurance people for not getting permits for residential construction work.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

The investigator looks at the damage, sees something fishy in the plumbing job that caused it, goes down to the town hall, pulls the package on the property, finds that the work in question was not present when the CO was issued, and no permit was issued subsequently, and they've got you.

Yep, and you causing the problem is reason.

Which they may be able to do by a variety of methods. And how many previous owners have there been, anyway?

"Knew or should have known" is a popular phrase in law these days.

It would be _very_ hard for clandestine ops experts acting under the direct orders of the President of the United States to get in trouble for breaking into his opponents campaign headquarters and photographing documents. Can you say "Watergate"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are digging yourself deeper into hypotheticals here.
First, you need to cite a case, any single case, where insurance coverage was denied due to lack of permit and/or inspection. It has not been my experience, nor anyone I've ever known who has had a claim.
Does my anecdotal evidence trump your statement? Of course not, but until you've a cite to case law, insurance boilerplate or an actual incident, you're just blowing smoke.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Fine, you win. Never ever pull a permit for anything and never ever get anything inspected and there is no circumstance whatsoever under which you will experience the slightest difficulty as a result. Are you happy now?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That, of course, is a complete non-sequitor and not representative of any of the comments you've received.
You made a claim, others are asking for you to back your claim.
scott
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.