In article , "Bill" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

The city seems to to have comingled several facets
(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement
was
based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a
new
subpanel.
One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
to
answer any
hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
might
be more cavalier.

I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
finishing
job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I
added
a
garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.


If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
insurance company
you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).

Bull****. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
because it never has.


I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of interesting:

http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/l...833224624.html

That page describes a building that was built in violation of local zoning
ordinances, and the city want the owner to tear it down. What does that have
to do with the allegation that an insurance company may deny a claim for a
residential fire if electrical work was done without a permit, or not done to
Code? That is a claim that is made frequently, here and at alt.home.repair,
but so far I haven't seen even one case in which the person making that claim
has been able to substantiate it.

Another issue is that should you sell your home, you will be liable to the
buyer should they experience a fire and learn that you installed the subpanel
without a permit.

Got a cite for that, or are you simply repeating what you read somewhere? Lots
of people say that too, but I haven't seen that one backed up either.