Whether or not your town or the state allows owner-installed electrical work, your *insurance company* is who you need to worry about. They will be very uncooperative after your house burns down and will be looking for any excuse to deny coverage.
A proper permit and inspection solves that.
gerry
As of this date, in accordance with Mass General Law, an inspector MAY NOT issue a permit to do electrical work to any person not licensed in the State of Mass as a Journeyman, Master Electrician, System Technician, or System Contractor. It is also stated in the law that an Electrical Inspector is not required to inspect work not performed under an Application to Perform Electrical Work.
This does not mean a homeowner can not do electrical work in his own home.
Having said that, you also MUST consider your homeowners insurance policy. The insurance companies will cancel you in a second if they can get away with it. ALWAYS read your policy to understand what you are covered for.
Tom
Electrical Inspector, MA
Are you telling us that the same state that has a law that an electrical permit cannot be issued to anyone who is not licensed, doesn't also have a law that says you need a permit to do most electrical work? That it's legal for a homeowner to DIY, no permit required? I find that hard to believe.
In accordance with Massachusetts General law 141, Any person who installs wires, devices, etc FOR HIRE must be licensed, insured, and obtain a permit. MA does not have a Homeowners Permit law, nor is there a Homeowners Permit form
As an Inspector, here in Massachusetts, I will NOT issue a Permit to a Homeowner, however, any wiring performed by a homeowner has to be in compliance with current Electrical Codes. According to the insurance companies. And the Fire Department. If the wiring does NOT comply, insurance companies are able to show cause to NOT cover any incidence that may happen
Tom Sullivan Inspector of Wires
Short answer is that the only thing a homeowner can't do legally in MA is plumbing.
The earlier answer is deceptive. There is, of course, no such thing as a "homeowners permit". But a homeowner can certainly get a permit themselves. I've had customers do it many times, as I don't work as a general contractor. (I've also had customers, such as architects and designers working on their own home, who want to be their own GC.)
But the procedure can vary from one town to another. In some towns the inspectors are happy to work with homeowners. In other towns they're more likely to go by the book. They don't want to make their own job any harder and don't want to risk liability, so they prefer to deal with contractors they know. It saves them time and work if they know the contractor's work and have a relationship with him/her.
I had a job last year for someone who was
*strongly* urged by the inspectors that he shouldn't pull his own permit and that he should hire a known, local contractor. He was told that if he got his own permit he would be unable to sue under the home improvement contractors law. That is true. The law is designed to provide a way for people to recoup their losses when a bad contractor skips out. The state pays the homeowner and then goes after the contractor itself. All contractors have to pay fees to fund that law in MA.So there are risks in being one's own GC and in getting a permit oneself. But if you understand those risks and want to get your own permit there should be no obstacle in doing so. If it were otherwise then it would be illegal for a citizen to work on their own house.
Sounds like there is an obstacle. Sully says he's the inspector and he ain't giving out permits to homeowners. It's an interesting position. Seems he wants to force homeowners into doing the work themselves without a permit and without an inspection. Sounds like very bad public policy to me. Glad it doesn't work that way here in NJ or most places.
Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by negligence).
But wrt electrical work, if a homeowner is negligent to the point of violating code, he loses his insurance? What if the evidence shows he was negligent but was clearly trying to follow code. For example he put in ten outlets, 9 are perfect and one has a wire that is stripped too much and touches something (Ignore that if the rest of the house is properly wired, that won't cause harm.) Find some example where one could know the code and be planning to follow code, and be technically able to follow the code (as evidenced by other work done at the same time in the same house) but was still negligent,. Would insurance be required to pay?
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the homeowner still insured?
The law doesn't say that a homeowner CAN't do his/her own wiring, it only says that any wiring must comply with today's codes. The law about permits is written only for people that charge for the work......
As of today, that is correct. Is that going to change in the future? Who knows?
The problem isn't the law being confusing, it is the home improvement stores selling things that are unsafe and the people in the stores telling homeowners how to install these things unsafely. The last 7 fires I have been called to investigate were caused by improperly installed items bought from a home improvement store..
I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:
The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...
Insurance companies have comprehensive computer databases containing social security numbers, addresses and claim history. Reckless folks will find themselves and/or their properties uninsurable. Certainly not where I'd want to be.
They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open to huge exposure.
Only exception I can see is if they go after the electrician for liability. Usually, the insurance would pay you and then go after reimbursement.
Google "CLUE database" (the insurance database). Fuck up a couple times and your rates go up. Fuck up too much and you'll become uninsurable. Good grief!
| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured | even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by | negligence). | You're insured for damage, not negligence. If an accident is your fault you could be sued by others or arrested. And states vary in terms of how you're covered. In MA it was "no-fault" for awhile. These days I think the way it works is that your insurance pays but the insurance company of the person at fault may be sued by the other company. One can also face insurance increases for at-fault accidents and can face fines or arrest for negligent driving. (Though, unfortunately, it's still legal in MA to diddle one's cellphone while sailing through a busy intersection.)
There was a case some years ago in Cambridge, MA where a handyman ran Romex under a carpet. (!). A chair on the carpet eventually wore through. It started a fire. People died. The handyman was indicted. I think he was charged with negligent homicide.
On the flip side, 60 minutes has run a piece twice about hurricane damage in NJ and how insurance companies altered engineer's reports to say that homeowners were making claims on existing damage, thereby refusing coverage.
And that's not an *exception*. They can go after the electrician, his insurance etc, but that is separate from your insurance company having to cover the claim.
Google what I posted a couple times. I said nothing about number of claims, rates or insurability.
The fact that you can be sued or arrested has nothing to do with his point, which is that with auto accidents, you're covered even though it was your negligence that is the cause of the accident. You are similarly covered for most negligence in the case of homeowner's insurance. I've yet to hear of an insurance company that won't pay a claim of a person tripping over the bucket you left on the sidewalk or when you failed to clear ice or where you left a pot burning on the stove and forgot about it, burning up the kitchen.
And insurance companies seem to pay off on the vast majority of claims where people did their own work. In all the times this has been brought up here, discussed, I've seen only one case where they insurance company refused the claim. And that one was an extreme, well documented case in CA. The homeowner who was building a new house, deliberately put in a fireplace that had been denied, doing it after the final inspection and the work was faulty. Even then, IDK how it ultimately turned out, might have been settled out of court, etc.
*** Insurance 101 for Dummies ***
- people that have accidents, have accidents.
- people that have lots of accidents are unprofitable.
- unprofitable people have trouble finding insurance.
Maybe there is an tax-payer subsidized ObamaInsurance plan for accident-prone idiots?
I have been told have a homeowners claim, like a home fire you become almost uninsurable..except by the original insurance company
having been thru a home fire with some friends who i was helping there are opportunities to make such a claim profitable for the insured
the fire restoration contractors make out like bandits.
heres a ancient mud job bathroom all concrete that must go.
most people would use a air hammer or small jackhammer
fire restoration company charged 90 bucks a hour for labor, required 2 workers to use small lightweight hammers to drag a one day demo, to a 4 day marathon. for more $$$$$
If that's true, MA must be a very unique place in the universe. Seven fires in a row caused by improperly installed items from a home improvement store? Are you as good investigating fires as you are in replying to posts that are over a year old? I think you're a guy with his butt crack showing who wants to con homeowners into only paying you to do the work.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.