So I guess you made up your statement about the insurance being invalidated in the spirt of protecting us from our foolishness. That's the question that was presented to you. I (we) simply want to know if you can quote reference or case for that statement. Can you?
Sure, but not deny the claim on the basis of a building permit or inspection. Please quote case or reference.
I does not take rocket science to figure it out either.
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 problems.
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.
-- Doug
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.Chris
Didn't say that. Here if your home has gone up lets say 100,000.00 and you add an attached porch, guess what? You get reassessed and you are now paying taxes on the added value of the porch and the 100,000,00 it's now worth. That's kinda reversed in the last 2 years with folks contacting the County Tax Man to reassess what the home is worth today.
Luckily, not all localities do that.
We pay for the add-on, and that's it.
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"?
Chasing down Texas case law is going to take time and effort. Do you want this badly enough to pay for it?
I did not say "it is a fact". I expressed an opinion. If you need every opinion labelled as such before you will recognize it as an opinion you have something wrong with you.
I note that you don't contest my point. This is all administrivia that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man an excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
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.
scott
You are the one that made the claim, you are the one who should do any research necessary to support the claim.
scott
What's in it for me?
So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or inspections?
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?
Cite a case, please.
Absolutly not. I'm confident I know the answer, I'm just trying to see if you can defend the position you have presented.
Knowing the truth?
I've also heard this claim, yet no one has come forward and said they were denied. Until I see some hard evidence, I'm skeptical.
No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.
No, it does not, but we have a system (screwy as it may be) with checks to insure it is done properly. Get the proper license and you're covered.
I dropped one of my state boiler licenses to take a lesser rated one. Why? The one that proves I have more knowledge does not allow me to be "in charge" but the lesser one does.
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.