75w bulb in 60w socket?

[Max]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:18:22 GMT, "Jacque Asse" graced this newsgroup with:

homeowners insurance doesn't work that way. They won't "void" a policy just because of owner stupidity.

[Eigenvector]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they have to pay when something goes wrong.

[mm]

Yes, and you don't want to spend time in a UL interrogation room.

[Doug Miller]

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* ??)

[Don Klipstein]

Most CFs up to 14 watts don't work too badly in globes, especially if operated base-down or horizontally.

Some CFs are even specifically rated for even worse heat hellholes - namely recessed ceiling fixtures. These include the Philips SLS 15, 20 and non-dimmable 23 watt ones.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

I would try a different one. They are not the same in color. In fact, most non-Sylvania spirals 13-15 watts I find to have an impressively incandescent-like color. I also found this true of Feit Electric spirals up to 23 watts.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

I once saw a "banker's lamp" style desk lamp rated for 60 watt bulbs and that had the wires produce a burning ofdor and visibly char to a dark brown color within 10's or hundreds of hours with a 60 watt bulb. I suspect it was tested with a bulb having a vacuum (if it was properly tested at all) and the lamp apparently came with a gas filled bulb. The bulb was a refrigerator/showcase style tubular one, and 120V bulbs of that style and up to 40 watts normally have a vacuum.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

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 ( [e-mail])

[Eigenvector]

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.

[CJT]

Plaintiffs' lawyers love that kind of talk.

[Doug Miller]

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.

[CJT]

... and maybe even punitive damages, depending where you are.

[Max]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 02:20:59 GMT, CJT graced 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.

[Eigenvector]

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?"

[Doug Miller]

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.

[dpb]

Could go w/ an A19 bulb instead of A15, however, and get roughly 25% more initial lumens at the same wattage (assuming the fixture will accept the larger size).

See GE comparisons at

[dpb]

...

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:

1. Any substantial change or increase in hazard, if changed or increased by any means within the control or knowledge of an insured person.
2. Intentional or criminal acts of or at the direction of any insured person, if the loss that occurs:
3. 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... :) )

[Mark Lloyd]

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.

[CJT]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Insurance companies can get in trouble that way.

[dpb]

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.

--