On Sep 22, 10:37�am, bud-- wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:58 am, bud-- wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:00 am, bud-- wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:42 am, bud-- wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:31:07 -0500, bud--
wrote:
The notion that insurance companies just go around "redlining" for no
reason is silly.
The notion that insurance companies have gone around "redlining"
neighborhoods is well documented. The neighborhood are likely to have
old houses. Old houses may have K&T. They also tended to have a black
population (maybe coincidence?)
Likely have a very high loss ratio in the neighbourhood.
They have their factors which affect how much they
may or may not pay out depending on multiple factors.
Like casualty [loss] data?
Personally, I
would not want to insure a 100 year old house with hacked up knob and
tube as described in the original post.
Personally I wouldn't want to insure my kid's house (when he bought it)
with hacked up Romex and other wiring.
Hacked up, along with not many outlets, is a separate issue.
IMHO K&T is safer than the early Romex (which also did not have a ground).
And what about the early 60 degree rated Romex that is buried in
insulation? Twice the heat, wires in close proximity?
Maybe insurance companies could look at the condition of the wiring?
They could at least look at casualty data. No indication yet that they did.
I guess I'd guiltu of
"redlining", whatever exactly that term means.
It was (maybe metaphorically) drawing a "red line" on a map and not
insuring houses in that area. I believe it is illegal in many (all?)
states, so insurance companies may use other means to accomplish the
same thing.
Insurance companies
are in the business of making money. Denying to take policy when
there is not substantial increased risk makes no sense.
Which goes back to the same question - what is the evidence there is
increased risk? Still missing.
Anecdotal evidence in this thread (clare's younger brother) proves Romex
is hazardous.
You are being STUPID.
The romex was not the hazard. The house was. And the installation of
the Romex.
The hazard is anecdotal proofs, which this thread seems to be full of.
--
bud--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
the proof the OPs wiring is a hazard is found in his first post. he
admitted its been hack repaired and altered. the perfect combo for a
home fire
since the OP is working for a client he will be on the hook if theres
a fire, even years later.
Whatever the condition from the OP, that is not a reflection on K&T in
general, as you want to claim.
Still missing - evidence that K&T is an intrinsic hazard. Or that it is
more of a problem than, for example, early 2 wire Romex.
--
bud--
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So are you too lazy or too stupid to edit out this garbage?
obviously anything thats been around this long is obsolete, lacks new
safety upgrades, and is great risk of hack repairs over its life.
"Obviously" is not proof. Obviously missing - evidence that K&T is an
intrinsic hazard. I don't believe electricians in this newsgroup agree
with you.
What evidence is there *hack* repairs are common on K&T? I don't
remember ever seeing any.
Is *hack" wiring more common than with other wiring methods?
Your opinion doesn't count. Where is a source? Never anything but
opinion and anecdotes.
In the link supplied previously an insurance company did not provide
evidence when challenged. Insurance companies employ lots of actuaries
to determine risk. I see no reason to believe insurance companies have
determined such a risk.
have you called statre farm to confirm they wouldnt write new policies
for K&T homes?
Have you read that in Minnesota State Farm (probably) had a surcharge on
older services and the state insurance regulator ordered the surcharge
dropped.
Because an insurance company does something does not necessarily mean
there is a rational basis. Where is your evidence?
I see no reason to believe State Farm is not redlining.
--
bud--
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Still too lazy/stupid.
would yopu be happy to pay say 100 bucks more a month for homeowners
insurance so homes with K&T and other obsolete systems can have
insurance?
That begs the question of whether K&T is significantly more hazardous
than other wiring. You have still not provided a reliable source that
says it is. The only relevant link in this thread is that an insurance
company, which employs actuaries to get casualty information, did not
show K&T was a hazard when challenged.
Where is your evidence. All you provide is FUD.
are YOU stating the CURRENT NEC regulations havent made new installs
safer?
Also begs the question of whether existing K&T is significantly more
hazardous.
I have read that K&T has been 'recently' used in areas subject to
flooding because it dries out faster. K&T is allowed to be used by
"special permission".
--
bud--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
you ignored my questions and failed to respond to the specific issue.
would you pay more for homeowners insurance so people with K&T could
get insurance
please supply a link to the info of K&T being used today. does it have
a ground conductor? GFCI? arc fault breaker? boxes for connections?