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
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.
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?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:28:41 GMT, email@example.com (Scott Lurndal)
For california reference - re: mold damage restrictions see:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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?
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.