Electrical Safety Question

[Dick]

My earlier post/question has left a layman's question in my mind:

In connecting a garbage disposal, if the 2 choices are:

A. Connecting up to a dedicated 15 amp (non-GFCI protected) circuit

OR

B. Connecting up to a 20amp kitchen countertop circuit (protected by a GFCI)

Which way would be safer? Code allows the first but disallows the 2nd type connection. Again, as a layman, connection "B" would seem safer with the only drawback appearing to be possible breaker trips if the circuit is allowed to get overloaded. (coffee maker, toaster, etc running when disposal is turned on) Are we talking safety or just convenience here??

[Toller]

Well, since everyone had "A", I guess that would be my choice. Actually my garbage disposal shares a circuit with my dishwasher. I think GFCIs are really only useful on things that are not properly grounded.

[Joseph Meehan]

I believe it must be a dedicated circuit unless it plugs in. In any case I like a dedicated circuit and there is no reason it can't be a GFCI if you like. You can add that by replacing the breaker.

[SQLit]

We used to be able to share the disposal with the dishwasher, that stopped I believe in 2002 code. Fixed appliances are to be on their own circuits. That means dishwasher and disposal are on separate circuits, not feeding anything else. GFCI and motors do not get a long very well in residential applications. After all the GFCI is only about 10 bucks.

I fail to understand your concept of "safer" between the 15 or 20 amp circuits. The 20 amp may offer less breaker trips. Safety, they are equal in this situation.

GFCI's are very useful in kitchens and outside. Water and electricity is a bad combination. Properly grounded, is a necessity and a given as far as I am concerned. Today's electronics in general need a ground to function correctly provided they have a 3 pronged plug.

[Dick]

The "safer" I was talking about was between a GFCI protected circuit (which in this case just happens to be a 20amp counter circuit) & a non-GFCI protected circuit. I understand that it is against code to share a kitchen counter circuit with any fixed appliances, but my question is safety. In this case , & to this layman, the code seems to be just concerned with preventing possible overloads (which can be fixed by simply turning off a few appliances & then resetting the breaker) Let me put it planer: If your only two choices (regardless of code) were to connect your disposal too: A. Connect up to a (non-GFCI protected) dedicated circuit . or B. Connect up to a GFCI protected circuit that has the potential to become overloaded

Which one of the above choices would be less likely to hurt or kill a person via shock? Again, as a layman, "B" appears to be the safer choice unless I am misunderstanding the importance of GFCI protection??

[CJT]

I think we're talking whether the insurance company will pay when the house burns down.

[trader4]

"I think we're talking whether the insurance company will pay when the house burns down. "

This kind of insurance comment has been made many times here. Has anyone ever seen for a fact where an insurance company refused to pay off on a claim when a house burned down because a electrical job was done incorrectly? Insurance pays off for all kinds of stupidity, including things like leaving the stove turned on with a pot of food on it, leaving a rake on the front steps that someone trips over, or hitting a golf ball and having it fly through the neighbors window. I've never heard of a case where after a fire the insurance company would not pay off by saying that the cause of the electrical fire was an incompetent electrical job.

And if the insurance company did do that, we'd all be in a lot of trouble wouldn't we? Say you bought a house and 10 years later, it burns down because of a poor wiring job and the insurance company takes such a position. How could you ever prove who did or didn't do it? Was it you? A contractor? A previous owner?

[spudnuty]

Well I feel that the second option is safer. However as pointed out elsewhere GFCIs and inductive loads (motors would be one) sometimes will lead to false tripping. On the other hand you could add a GFCI breaker in your box. Also as pointed out elsewhere. I just replaced a clients dishwasher motor. The fan weld had broken and the fan rattled around on the shaft and eroded the insulation on the field coils in the motor. Eventually the wires were so eroded they opened up and the motor died. This could have been going on for months. The motor was isolated from the dishwasher frame electrically so there was no short and the breaker never tripped. However the mount to the motor could have possibly touched the frame around the door and that metal would have been hot! Luckly none of the kids living in the unit touched the door when the washer was running. A GFCI would have tripped in this instance. I use them wherever I can, especially outside. I'm willing to put up with the false tripping esp. when using long extension cords. I look at it as verification that the GFCI is working. Richard

[CJT]

Good point. I was just repeating what I had heard. I actually don't know. Sorry. I usually try to think things through better than that.

[Tom Horne, Electrician]

The burden of proof is on the insurance carrier because the insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith. Both parties are obligated to do nothing to cause a loss and to be able to pay a loss if it occurs. It is however a legal absurdity to attempt to insure yourself against the consequences of your own unlawful act. If you do electrical work in a manor that is forbidden by law; such as without a permit or in violation of the legally adopted electrical code; and that work is the cause of a loss, then the insurance carrier can walk away. You aren't likely to get caught but it does happen. I am a volunteer firefighter rescuer in addition to my bread work as an electrician. I have been deposed in one such case. The homeowner had finished his basement with paneling that was mounted directly on the studs. The electrical work; though it is a stretch to call it that; was done in 1&1/2" deep low voltage device boxes that held replacement only two wire receptacles, supplied via zip cord. A basement upright freezer that was plugged in using an adapter was the origin of the fire. Since the cause of the fire was listed in the fire service cause and origin report as improperly executed electrical work the insurance carrier inquired as to who had done the work. The basement was listed on the insurance documents as unfinished so the home owner was told he would have to identify the installer so that the insurer could pursue the installer to recover the loss. When the home owner finally admitted that he had done the work himself The insurer refused the claim. After depositions, including mine, were taken in the home owners suite against the insurer his attorney informed him his case was unwinnable and he had to eat the loss. Yes that is only one case but I'm only one firefighter so there must be a few such cases.

[Pop]

Yes, I have seen that: It made the newspapers big time in this area. It was some short-cuts in the wiring in a restaurant.

: > This kind of insurance comment has been made many times here. Has : > anyone ever seen for a fact where an insurance company refused to pay : > off on a claim when a house burned down because a electrical job was : > done incorrectly? Insurance pays off for all kinds of stupidity, : > including things like leaving the stove turned on with a pot of food on : > it, leaving a rake on the front steps that someone trips over, or : > hitting a golf ball and having it fly through the neighbors window. : > I've never heard of a case where after a fire the insurance company : > would not pay off by saying that the cause of the electrical fire was : > an incompetent electrical job. : >

: > And if the insurance company did do that, we'd all be in a lot of : > trouble wouldn't we? Say you bought a house and 10 years later, it : > burns down because of a poor wiring job and the insurance company takes : > such a position. How could you ever prove who did or didn't do it? : > Was it you? A contractor? A previous owner? : >

: : Good point. I was just repeating what I had heard. I actually don't : know. Sorry. I usually try to think things through better than that. : : -- : The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to : minimize spam. Our true address is of the form [e-mail].

[trader4]

"I am a volunteer firefighter rescuer in addition to my bread work as an electrician. I have been deposed in one such case. The homeowner had finished his basement with

paneling that was mounted directly on the studs. The electrical work; though it is a stretch to call it that; was done in 1&1/2" deep low voltage device boxes that held replacement only two wire receptacles, supplied via zip cord. A basement upright freezer that was plugged in using an adapter was the origin of the fire. Since the cause of the fire was listed in the fire service cause and origin report as improperly executed electrical work the insurance carrier inquired as to who had done the work. The basement was listed on the insurance documents as unfinished so the home owner was told he would have to identify the installer so that the insurer could pursue the installer to recover the loss. When the home owner finally admitted that he had done the work himself The insurer refused the claim. After depositions, including mine, were taken in the home owners suite against the insurer

his attorney informed him his case was unwinnable and he had to eat the loss. Yes that is only one case but I'm only one firefighter so there must be a few such cases.

-- Tom Horne "

Interesting story. Which raises the question of how obviously incorrect the work that started the fire must be and what other circumstances must be present for the insurance company to refuse to pay the claim. And even the insurance company refusing to pay, even if the insurance company is wrong, is bad enough. Say a fire did $50K in damage. A homeowner would have little recourse, because trying to sue the insurance company could easily cost that much, without any guarantee of winning.

It sounds like in the case you cited, the circumstances and obvious hack work done were sufficient for the insurance company to prevail. I just wonder if the insurance companies have ever used this to screw someone, where the circumstances were not as clear and the homeowner wasn't the one really responsible for causing the fire.