Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.

wrote:
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.

I would call the building permit office and ask questions without
giving personal information. They are usually very helpful and will
tell you EXACTLY what you will need a permit for and what you don't. As
long as you are doing the work yourself they will be helpful, however
if you hire a licensed contractor you WILL be expected to get
everything straight before you even place a phone call to them. They
expect nothing but excellence from people who make their living in a
trade as opposed to a homeowner taking care of their own house.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.


I usually don't bother with permit$ but, I would get a permit for any work
that when done, would change the legal description of your home as recorded
with the county. A change in the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square
footage etc. If you go to sell your property later on and things don't
match then you may be required to comply with permits and/or fines. Just
depends on where you are and/or how picky the buyer is.

Kevin

I agree, the building dept. in your town, city, has jurisdiction over your
property. They will tell you what you can do and how to go about it. These
days I find building inspectors tend to be very paranoid and extremely
concerned about their personal, and the towns liability. I for example had a
building inspector require me,(a licensed electrician) to get a permit to
safe off an unused cable,by installing it into a box. The electrical
inspector was in as much disbelief as I was.



wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.

I would call the building permit office and ask questions without
giving personal information. They are usually very helpful and will
tell you EXACTLY what you will need a permit for and what you don't. As
long as you are doing the work yourself they will be helpful, however
if you hire a licensed contractor you WILL be expected to get
everything straight before you even place a phone call to them. They
expect nothing but excellence from people who make their living in a
trade as opposed to a homeowner taking care of their own house.

Some inspectors just LOVE to give people a hard time, then suggest you
call their buddy who gets a $ commision,

If I were you I wouldnt invite them in unless absolutely necessary, as
long as you know how to do the work safely.

if theres any knob and tube you should get rid of it, insurance
companies today dont want to insure homes with knob and tube

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.

Also electrical permits are not expensive and people doing electrical work
make mistakes sometimes because they are human, so it is a good idea to get
an expert (inspector) to look at your work to be sure it is safe.

FYI - I first upgraded my service and ran just a few new critical circuits.
While inspector was checking my work, I warned him to not touch any old
electrical boxes because of the dangerous D-I-Y wiring I had found. He said
he had seen worse, but thanked me for the warning.

And he saw my new work and saw that I knew what I was doing. Understood that
I was fixing things a little at a time, etc. And he saw that I eventually
was going to fix all the dangerous stuff (which I later got separate permits
for).

So I think they understand it is difficult to fix everything at once while
living in a house.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.


If you are redoing wiring or breakers I'd pull a permit. Making sure the
circuits have the right breaker for the rated wire current is important, as
well as any outlets.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.

old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by a
company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.

wrote:
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?

In most places a permit isn't needed for repairs or even pulling in a
new circuit. Permits are usually only required for service upgrades,
whole house rewires, and new additions.


Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?

Shouldn't require a permit.

I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.

Some areas do have those requirements.

While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?

Call it what you want, but some cities do exactly that.

Charles Spitzer wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.


old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by a
company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.



I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message newsU3Gf.12000
I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.

Can anyone make any sense of this?

Bob

wrote:
Something of a philosophy question here...

I've recently moved into a 100+ year-old house and, in addition to
finding the usual decaying wiring (mostly BX), I have discovered all
sorts of poorly done and potentially dangerous work (mis-wired
receptacles, neutral-switched switches, grounded receptacles without
grounds, etc, etc). I believe I can handle most of the fixes for these
things, but I'd like to comply with the laws and get permits and have
my work inspected.

The question is, in the opinion of the "old hands", where is the
dividing line between work needing a full permit and a simple "repair"?
Replacing a receptacle: sure, no need to pull a permit, but what if I
replace a corroded 6-foot BX run with some fresh NM at the same time?
I think there is a gradation there, but I don't have a feel for its
parameters.

Also, I have some lingering uneasiness related to 3rd-hand stories of
inspectors demanding whole houses be brought up to code, whenever any
work is done which disturbs the "pre-existing" state of the wiring.
While this sounds counter-productive (since this would disuade people
from doing any work, when even a little could really enhance the safety
of the wiring), it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or, maybe this is
mostly paranoia on my part?


Anyhow... any thoughts appreciated.

Paranoia when it comes to getting permits and
inspections is common sense depending on where you
live. I'm no scofflaw, but I recognize that
although building permits have a safety component
the laws are mostly driven by control and putting
money in someones pocket. A knowledgeable person
that follows accepted procedures is way better off
just proceeding than waiting for trouble.

If there are that many problems, a complete rewire
maybe the best course of action.

Bob wrote:
"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message newsU3Gf.12000
I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.

Can anyone make any sense of this?

Bob

Yeah. Don't do incompetent electrical work and you won't have to worry
about starting house fires, causing serious shocks or electrocutions,
blowing up electric equipment, and getting dropped by your insurance
company.

Bob wrote:
"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message newsU3Gf.12000

I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.


Can anyone make any sense of this?

Bob


I guess I should take more time to be clear or not post at all.

Someone alleged that the possibility of your insurance not covering the
loss if your electrical work caused a fire was an old wives tale. My
too cryptic reply was that I had been deposed by the insurance carrier
in just such a case. I was the firefighter that handled the hose layout
from the hydrant on the insured's well involved basement fire. When a
firefighter says "it's rockin" they mean it is a very well developed
fire that has quite a start on the attack crew on arrival. A good stop
is when the attack crew holds the fire to just the involved space with
just the initial attack staffing.

The homeowner in that case had done some very shoddy work which was
obviously the cause of the fire. The insurance carrier took statements
under the penalties of perjury from all of the first attack staff. They
came to the conclusion that the loss was a direct result of the
insured's unlawful act and refused his claim. The homeowner had to pay
for the repairs out of pocket i.e. he had to eat the loss.

I hope that is clearer now.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

Right. If you do nothing to correct obvious problems because you are
worried that a permit will end up opening a can of worms you can't
afford, then you are probably putting yourself at more risk overall
versus simply fixing the worse things, without a permit.

The insurance liability issue just takes it into a whole different
realm of speculation.

I jumped through all the flaming hoops for my basement remodel. The
inspectors seemed annoyed that I troubled them for such a small job.
Rough-in inspection was 30 seconds. Final inspection was a couple of
minutes. I took the time to do the job right and it showed, but it
would have been nice to have an inspector check it all thoroughly.

However, it was absolutely worth it. I have the approved plans and
inspection reports if they're ever needed for any reason.


-rev

I've been on insurance fire jobs (State Farm) where the fire was almost
definitely caused by the home owner and they paid anyway. I myself cut down
a huge maple tree on my neighbors property and my homeowners insurance had
to provide me with a lawyer and pay the damages. I can't say how homeowners
policies work in other states, but in NY, they cover the stupid things the
homeowner does



"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message
news
Charles Spitzer wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.


old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by a
company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.

I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that did
the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his basement
fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance carrier
walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
I've been on insurance fire jobs (State Farm) where the fire was almost
definitely caused by the home owner and they paid anyway. I myself cut
down a huge maple tree on my neighbors property and my homeowners
insurance had to provide me with a lawyer and pay the damages. I can't say
how homeowners policies work in other states, but in NY, they cover the
stupid things the homeowner does



"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message
news
Charles Spitzer wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.


old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by a
company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.

I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.

i'm not quite sure why someone out on the curb or down the street would have
anything substantive to say about the quality of work done inside someone's
basement. everything you would have been able to depose about would have
been hearsay, unless you're also a licensed electrician and did a
before-fire inspection?

then they had a stupid, incompetant, or non-existant lawyer. i haven't seen
all the policies ever written, but that's the object of insurance, to
protect you against stupid and unforeseen circumstances. all the policies
i've had haven't said: if you do something stupid we won't cover you.

insurance companies don't like to pay out and can fight you over every
little thing that their host of lawyers can come up with. the person may be
uninsurable after a claim about this, but given normal house insurance
policies, any decent lawyer should have beat them.

Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message link.net...
Bob wrote:
"Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT" wrote in message newsU3Gf.12000

I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.


Can anyone make any sense of this?

Bob


I guess I should take more time to be clear or not post at all.

Someone alleged that the possibility of your insurance not covering the
loss if your electrical work caused a fire was an old wives tale. My
too cryptic reply was that I had been deposed by the insurance carrier
in just such a case. I was the firefighter that handled the hose layout
from the hydrant on the insured's well involved basement fire. When a
firefighter says "it's rockin" they mean it is a very well developed
fire that has quite a start on the attack crew on arrival. A good stop
is when the attack crew holds the fire to just the involved space with
just the initial attack staffing.

The homeowner in that case had done some very shoddy work which was
obviously the cause of the fire. The insurance carrier took statements
under the penalties of perjury from all of the first attack staff. They
came to the conclusion that the loss was a direct result of the
insured's unlawful act and refused his claim. The homeowner had to pay
for the repairs out of pocket i.e. he had to eat the loss.

I hope that is clearer now.
--
Tom Horne

With that knowledge, it now makes a lot more sense. Before, it was jibberish
to me. Funny how a slight change of viewpoint can do that. Thanks.

Bob

Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT wrote:
Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.



old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by a
company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.


I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his insurance
carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly caused by his
incompetent electrical work.

Sure. I have done extensive insurance work with several major
companies (State Farm, Allstate, Providence, etc.) where the
homeowner actually caused the damage and the insurance paid
(or I would not have been there.) There is no insurance
clause against stupidity.

I have heard these tales often and I know that they are bull.
I have asked several of the adjusters about this and they
all say the same thing; If we cannot prove that it was done
to intentionally cause damage, then we have to pay. One is
stupidity and one is insurance fraud.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Know a guy who cut down a HUGE tree on his property. It fell the wrong
way and dropped a high tension line on a low voltage one. Everyone for
5 miles got all their bad electronic equiptement replaced, paid by the
fellows insurance. What he did was stupid, pulled the tree the wrong
way, there were witnesses...

Cost insuurance 18 grand

His policy now has a exclusion for things like this...

Robert Allison wrote:
Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT wrote:

Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I do believe that if electrical work is done without a permit/being
inspected, and this electrical work causes a fire or whatever, your
insurance company might not pay for damages.




old wive's tale. what they might do is if the new wiring was done by
a company and it causes a problem, they would go after that company's
liability insurance.


I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one that
did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for his
basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his
insurance carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly
caused by his incompetent electrical work.


Sure. I have done extensive insurance work with several major companies
(State Farm, Allstate, Providence, etc.) where the homeowner actually
caused the damage and the insurance paid (or I would not have been
there.) There is no insurance clause against stupidity.

I have heard these tales often and I know that they are bull. I have
asked several of the adjusters about this and they all say the same
thing; If we cannot prove that it was done to intentionally cause
damage, then we have to pay. One is stupidity and one is insurance fraud.


How pleasant to be called a liar. So you have access to every refused
claim from every insurance carrier in the US both stock and mutual and
you know for a fact that no claim is ever declined for reason of the
insureds unlawful act being the cause of the loss. It must be wonderful
to have so much information at your command.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and woman most remarkable like you.

Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT wrote:
Robert Allison wrote:

Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT wrote:

Charles Spitzer wrote:

snip

I gave a deposition in such a case were the homeowner was the one
that did the work. I was the layout man on the second due engine for
his basement fire and it was rockin. We made a good stop but his
insurance carrier walked away from the loss because it was directly
caused by his incompetent electrical work.



Sure. I have done extensive insurance work with several major
companies (State Farm, Allstate, Providence, etc.) where the
homeowner actually caused the damage and the insurance paid (or I
would not have been there.) There is no insurance clause against
stupidity.

I have heard these tales often and I know that they are bull. I have
asked several of the adjusters about this and they all say the same
thing; If we cannot prove that it was done to intentionally cause
damage, then we have to pay. One is stupidity and one is insurance
fraud.


How pleasant to be called a liar. So you have access to every refused
claim from every insurance carrier in the US both stock and mutual and
you know for a fact that no claim is ever declined for reason of the
insureds unlawful act being the cause of the loss. It must be wonderful
to have so much information at your command.

And it must be incredibly frustrating to need every bit of
information available on any given subject to be able to come
to an informed conclusion.

I was careful not to call the previous poster a liar. He may
just be mistaken, he may have the details wrong, etc. I can
only tell you what my 22 years of dealing directly with
insurance claim losses and adjusters on a daily basis has told
me. Now if you want to take the evidence of one anecdote and
use that to base your conclusions on, fine with me. That
would, however, violate your apparent need to have access to
the data for every single claim on hand in order to come to a
conclusion.

When you get all that data, and spend all the time necessary
to parse the info, I would be curious to know what percentage
of homeowner claims are denied for this reason. I know it
probably runs between .1 and .3 percent, but I would be
curious to know the exact percentage.

As for me, I can continue to operate knowing what little I
know, based on my experience. If you are going to try to
convince me that homeowners need to fear making a mistake lest
their insurance claims be denied, then you are going to have
to come up with a little more than one anecdote, because I
know that that is bull.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX