permit inspections

[J. Clarke]

Well, that's two tries you've made at scathing rebuttal neither of which amounted to more than name-calling? Care to try for a third?

[jo4hn]

anybody's shoes full of yellow liquids yet?

[Doug Brown]

I generally don't wear shoes in the house-----but there is this strange puddle...............

[krw]

I'm not name-calling, just stating the facts. I have no unsaleable property. In fact, I own no property (for two more weeks, anyway). I had no problem selling my previous homes, even though I had made extensive modifications, mostly without permits or inspections. I added a garage to one and pulled permits, had the foolish inspections (what a bunch of morons), and had been issued a CO.

Yes, you are a fool and a liar. It really is that simple.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip of snipping match

Don't know about that, but my eyes are glazing over.

[clare at snyder dot ontario do]

Or theplumbing allows contaminated water into the rater supply - BAD. Plumbing requires inspection for the safety of us all - as well as to recuce the likelihood of structural damage and black mold infestations in the building in question due to poor workmanship. If building standards are not enforced it is like food inspections not being enforced - as has been the case with the vast meat recalls from Maple Leaf Foods in Canada these last few weaks - or water plants not being inspected - like Walkerton Ontario several years back (E-coli) or the levys around new Orleans 3 years ago this week.

** Posted from **

[clare at snyder dot ontario do]

In Ontario you can do your own work on your own house without a licence - but a permit is required, as is an inspection. If you work on someone elses house and the house burns down (or floods) due to your mistake, the homeowner's insurance - particularly in the case of fire, where the fire marchal's office determines the cause of the fire to be shoddy wiring, will demand to know who did the repairs. If you charged for the job, the homeowner is VERY likely to give your name - in which case YOUR insurance ends up paying their insurance company - and if you have no insurance you are out of luck. And possibly fined as well (insurance or no insurance)

In the case of non permitted and non inspected additions and renovations, you can be forced by the municipality to remove the offending structure - be that a fence, deck, addition, dormer, or whatever at your expense. You can also be retroactively charged for the permit/inspection PLUS a sizeable fine.

EUO, or Examination Under Oath is a common procedure in the general insurance world. So is the property insurance field appraisal (which if agreed to is binding). An EUO, if requested, is mandatory. If you refuse, the insurer can and WILL deny coverage. A PIFA is often asked for by the insurer, but you may refuse. If you accept a PIFA, you have lost the right to further legal action to recover higher costs. Prorerty damage lawyers know how to handle the insurance companies. You don't. I don't. I do know that insurance carriers tend to work on basis of "pay without question if the damage is less than the cost of a protracted legal proceding" as well as "fight like hell if the damages are significantly more than the cost of a protracted legal battle and they think they have a reasonable expectation of winning the case"

On the in-between stuff it appears to be something akin to the roll of a dice. I'll have to ask one of the professionals at the insurance company where I spend my mornings to see if he can provide the policy wordings that can restrict coverage due to faulty workmanship or whatever.

** Posted from **

[Eigenvector]

You mean like requiring a permit to repair drywall or paint your house? While I absolutely do agree that certain things should require permits - electrical panel work, gas piping, supply side water installation/renovation, sewer work - there are other things that exist simply to supply the city with meaningful occupation - painting your house, replacing a faucet, replacing an outlet, installing drywall, installing a hot water heater.

Permits are a way for the city/county to protect you and others from situations that require expertise and skill to perform safely. But taken to a logical conclusion they are the means by which the state can remove your freedoms without you even noticing.

[clare at snyder dot ontario do]

For california reference - re: mold damage restrictions see:

need to look at your policy - is it "broad form" or "special form". Each type of policy is different.

Also see:

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.

** Posted from **

[clare at snyder dot ontario do]

OK - I checked with the "experts" at the brokerage where I spend my mornings. An insurance company CAN refuse to pay damages in the case of grossly inadequate modifications made by the homeowner materially being at fault in a claim if he knew, or should have known, that what he did was dangerous and/or illegal. They would have to have a very good case in order for their refusal to pay to stand up in court - but they own thair lawyers - and you rent yours. Do the math. The courts could find in your favour. They could find in the insurance company's favour, or they could award substantually reduced compensation for your damages.

In the case of a payout for damages caused by an incompetent contractor, they would pay, then go after the contractor or his insurance company to recover their expense.

In Canada, and Ontario in particular, it is very rare, but not unheard of, for an insurance company to take this route.

Part of the legalese involved is whether the person (homeowner) "knew or should have known" that what he did was likely to cause damage. ANother is whether his actions "materially" contributed to the damage.

One Ontario case that was VERY close to being successful on the insurance company's part involved an engineer who decided to refinish his hardwood floors with a very flamable finish. In large letters on the can it stated that ALL SOURCES OF IGNITION MUST BE REMOVED from the home. Said engineer did not shut off the gas waterheater, and the electronic ignition ignited the fumes, flattening the house and damaging several others.

The insurance company thought they had a good case - the guy WAS an engineer - and SHOULD have known to turn off the water heater before starting the job. His carelessnes was the ENTIRE cause of the damage, meeting the "materially" clause.

The court came to the conclusion that just because the guy was an engineer didn't mean he was necesarilly "smarter than the average bear" - perhaps he really did not undestand that a gas waterheater could ignite at any time, or indeed that it had an open flame when running - so they ordered the insurance company to pay. THAT one could very easily have gone the other way.

The "expert" was not aware of any recent cases where restitution was denied - but MANY cases where renewal of insurance was not offered, or initial coverage was not offered. If an insurance company smells a significantly elevated risk, they run the other way as quickly as they can - they are not in business to lose money.

Howvever,my daughter,also a registered insurance broker, said they "pay for gross stupidity ALL the time". Theft from unlocked houses? no problem.Theft from unlocked cars? All the time (except in some high crime areas where an exclusion may be put on a policy, voiding theft insurance if it can be established that the home/vehicle was not locked, a car was left running anattended, or keys were left in the car.)

In "general insurance" - (not automotive, life, or health) a sizeable percentage of claims fall under that category (gross stupidity)

** Posted from **