Here in the mediocre state of Massachusetts, the insurance system is a
cesspool of strange and unnecessary laws. But having said that...
When the insurance guy comes out to assess the damage, he's not going to
know the difference between your guy grips. You would think they would send
out a tower specialist, and they might, but chances are you'll get one of
their homeowners guys who is going to take down some part numbers and
figure out the cost of replacing the damaged parts. So, in a perfect world,
yes, insurance could claim a faulty non-spec install and not pay. In the
real world, though, they'll pay, and your premium will go up just a bit.
The easiest solution to all of this, however, is to do the install by the
spec and not worry about it coming down!
--
Mike DeChristopher, N1TA
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 11/24/11 7:13 PM, Kevin's Mail wrote:
> > It gives the insurance company a real good excuse not to pay the claim.
> >
> > I can rewire my house to my hearts content. If I shortcut things, don't
> get an inspection and the house burns because of my creative wiring should
> I really expect the insurance company to cover the loss?
> >
>
>
> That's a very tricky legal issue. Sure, the insurance company *might*
> be able to avoid paying the claim, but there's an awful lot of
> unpermitted work done on an awful lot of houses (otherwise, why would
> there be so many "after the fact" permits issued when the house changes
> hands), and while the insurance company might be cranky and slow, I
> suspect they eventually pay.
>
> What would the insurance company's standard of performance for rewiring be?
>
> In California, it's legal for a homeowner to do their own work, so there
> couldn't be a "has to be done by licensed professional" standard. I
> suspect most other states are the same.
>
> It can't be whether a permit was issued. Building permits are more a
> revenue/land-use thing: there's lots of work that doesn't require a
> permit and there's huge variation among localities in what requires a
> permit and what doesn't.
>
> It can't be "code compliant", for a variety of reasons. For instance,
> which code applies, when the house was built in 1930, and has had
> modifications over the last 80 years. After the fact, it might be
> difficult to tell which changes were made when. Besides, I'd venture
> that if you went to *any* house in my 15 year old tract, you'd find at
> least one code violation (in the same way that an officer making a
> traffic stop can always find some obscure thing wrong, if they want to)
>
> I suspect that the *real standard* is something along the lines of
> "willful negligence and disregard for safety", i.e. you should have
> known better. And since that's a sort of subjective thing, it would
> ultimately be up to some judge/jury to decide what the "reasonable
> person" would think.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|