replying to Scot, Sully wrote:
blank wrote:

Hoping someone can clear this up.
I have been hearing two conflicting viewpoints on this, regarding
residential wiring of receptacles. One person says that it meets code here
in Mass. for the homeowner to do wiring of new breakers and receptacles.
Another person has told me that any plumbing or electrical work must be
done
by a licensed electrician to meet code.
Can anyone clarify which answer is correct? Any links to websites?
Thanks,
Scott


In accordance with Massachusetts General law 141, Any person who installs
wires, devices, etc FOR HIRE must be licensed, insured, and obtain a
permit.
MA does not have a Homeowners Permit law, nor is there a Homeowners Permit
form

As an Inspector, here in Massachusetts, I will NOT issue a Permit to a
Homeowner, however, any wiring performed by a homeowner has to be in
compliance with current Electrical Codes. According to the insurance
companies. And the Fire Department.
If the wiring does NOT comply, insurance companies are able to show cause
to NOT cover any incidence that may happen

Tom Sullivan
Inspector of Wires


--

Short answer is that the only thing a homeowner
can't do legally in MA is plumbing.

The earlier answer is deceptive. There is, of course,
no such thing as a "homeowners permit". But a
homeowner can certainly get a permit themselves.
I've had customers do it many times, as I don't
work as a general contractor. (I've also had
customers, such as architects and designers working
on their own home, who want to be their own GC.)

But the procedure can vary
from one town to another. In some towns the
inspectors are happy to work with homeowners.
In other towns they're more likely to go by the
book. They don't want to make their own job
any harder and don't want to risk liability, so
they prefer to deal with contractors they know.
It saves them time and work if they know the
contractor's work and have a relationship with
him/her.

I had a job last year for someone who was
*strongly* urged by the inspectors that he
shouldn't pull his own permit and that he should
hire a known, local contractor. He was told that
if he got his own permit he would be unable to
sue under the home improvement contractors
law. That is true. The law is designed to provide
a way for people to recoup their losses when
a bad contractor skips out. The state pays the
homeowner and then goes after the contractor
itself. All contractors have to pay fees to fund
that law in MA.

So there are risks in being one's own GC and in
getting a permit oneself. But if you understand those
risks and want to get your own permit there should
be no obstacle in doing so. If it were otherwise
then it would be illegal for a citizen to work on
their own house.

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 6:14:24 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Short answer is that the only thing a homeowner
can't do legally in MA is plumbing.

The earlier answer is deceptive. There is, of course,
no such thing as a "homeowners permit". But a
homeowner can certainly get a permit themselves.
I've had customers do it many times, as I don't
work as a general contractor. (I've also had
customers, such as architects and designers working
on their own home, who want to be their own GC.)

But the procedure can vary
from one town to another. In some towns the
inspectors are happy to work with homeowners.
In other towns they're more likely to go by the
book. They don't want to make their own job
any harder and don't want to risk liability, so
they prefer to deal with contractors they know.
It saves them time and work if they know the
contractor's work and have a relationship with
him/her.

I had a job last year for someone who was
*strongly* urged by the inspectors that he
shouldn't pull his own permit and that he should
hire a known, local contractor. He was told that
if he got his own permit he would be unable to
sue under the home improvement contractors
law. That is true. The law is designed to provide
a way for people to recoup their losses when
a bad contractor skips out. The state pays the
homeowner and then goes after the contractor
itself. All contractors have to pay fees to fund
that law in MA.

So there are risks in being one's own GC and in
getting a permit oneself. But if you understand those
risks and want to get your own permit there should
be no obstacle in doing so. If it were otherwise
then it would be illegal for a citizen to work on
their own house.

Sounds like there is an obstacle. Sully says he's the
inspector and he ain't giving out permits to homeowners.
It's an interesting position. Seems he wants to force
homeowners into doing the work themselves without a permit
and without an inspection. Sounds like very bad public
policy to me. Glad it doesn't work that way here in NJ
or most places.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:44:02 +0000, Sully
wrote:

replying to Scot, Sully wrote:
blank wrote:

Hoping someone can clear this up.
I have been hearing two conflicting viewpoints on this, regarding
residential wiring of receptacles. One person says that it meets code here
in Mass. for the homeowner to do wiring of new breakers and receptacles.
Another person has told me that any plumbing or electrical work must be
done
by a licensed electrician to meet code.
Can anyone clarify which answer is correct? Any links to websites?
Thanks,
Scott


In accordance with Massachusetts General law 141, Any person who installs
wires, devices, etc FOR HIRE must be licensed, insured, and obtain a
permit.
MA does not have a Homeowners Permit law, nor is there a Homeowners Permit
form

As an Inspector, here in Massachusetts, I will NOT issue a Permit to a
Homeowner, however, any wiring performed by a homeowner has to be in
compliance with current Electrical Codes. According to the insurance
companies. And the Fire Department.
If the wiring does NOT comply, insurance companies are able to show cause
to NOT cover any incidence that may happen

Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
negligence).

But wrt electrical work, if a homeowner is negligent to the point of
violating code, he loses his insurance? What if the evidence shows
he was negligent but was clearly trying to follow code. For example he
put in ten outlets, 9 are perfect and one has a wire that is stripped
too much and touches something (Ignore that if the rest of the house is
properly wired, that won't cause harm.) Find some example where one
could know the code and be planning to follow code, and be technically
able to follow the code (as evidenced by other work done at the same
time in the same house) but was still negligent,. Would insurance be
required to pay?

Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

Tom Sullivan
Inspector of Wires

On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...

Insurance companies have comprehensive computer databases containing
social security numbers, addresses and claim history.
Reckless folks will find themselves and/or their properties uninsurable.
Certainly not where I'd want to be.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.

On 7/25/2015 10:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.



Only exception I can see is if they go after the electrician for
liability. Usually, the insurance would pay you and then go after
reimbursement.

On 07/25/2015 09:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.



Google "CLUE database" (the insurance database).
**** up a couple times and your rates go up.
**** up too much and you'll become uninsurable.
Good grief!

| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
| even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
| negligence).
|
You're insured for damage, not negligence. If
an accident is your fault you could be sued by
others or arrested. And states vary in terms of
how you're covered. In MA it was "no-fault" for
awhile. These days I think the way it works is
that your insurance pays but the insurance
company of the person at fault may be sued by
the other company. One can also face insurance
increases for at-fault accidents and can face
fines or arrest for negligent driving. (Though,
unfortunately, it's still legal in MA to diddle one's
cellphone while sailing through a busy intersection.)

There was a case some years ago in Cambridge, MA
where a handyman ran Romex under a carpet. (!). A
chair on the carpet eventually wore through. It started
a fire. People died. The handyman was indicted. I
think he was charged with negligent homicide.

On the flip side, 60 minutes has run a piece twice
about hurricane damage in NJ and how insurance
companies altered engineer's reports to say that
homeowners were making claims on existing damage,
thereby refusing coverage.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 10:39:22 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/25/2015 10:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.



Only exception I can see is if they go after the electrician for
liability. Usually, the insurance would pay you and then go after
reimbursement.

And that's not an *exception*. They can go after the electrician,
his insurance etc, but that is separate from your insurance company
having to cover the claim.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:04:13 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/25/2015 09:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.



Google "CLUE database" (the insurance database).
**** up a couple times and your rates go up.
**** up too much and you'll become uninsurable.
Good grief!

Google what I posted a couple times. I said nothing
about number of claims, rates or insurability.

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
| even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
| negligence).
|
You're insured for damage, not negligence. If
an accident is your fault you could be sued by
others or arrested.

The fact that you can be sued or arrested has nothing
to do with his point, which is that with auto accidents,
you're covered even though it was your negligence that
is the cause of the accident. You are similarly covered
for most negligence in the case of homeowner's insurance.
I've yet to hear of an insurance company that won't pay
a claim of a person tripping over the bucket you left
on the sidewalk or when you failed to clear ice or where
you left a pot burning on the stove and forgot about it,
burning up the kitchen.

And insurance companies seem to pay off on the vast majority
of claims where people did their own work. In all the times
this has been brought up here, discussed, I've seen only one
case where they insurance company refused the claim. And
that one was an extreme, well documented case in CA.
The homeowner who was building a new house, deliberately
put in a fireplace that had been denied, doing it after
the final inspection and the work was faulty. Even then,
IDK how it ultimately turned out, might have been settled
out of court, etc.

I have been told have a homeowners claim, like a home fire you become almost uninsurable..except by the original insurance company

having been thru a home fire with some friends who i was helping there are opportunities to make such a claim profitable for the insured

the fire restoration contractors make out like bandits.

heres a ancient mud job bathroom all concrete that must go.

most people would use a air hammer or small jackhammer

fire restoration company charged 90 bucks a hour for labor, required 2 workers to use small lightweight hammers to drag a one day demo, to a 4 day marathon. for more $$$$$

trader_4 wrote in news:f52881f3-f4a6-4688-9527-e07e77324b52
@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.

Of course they'll pay the claim. They have a contract with the homeowner that obligates
them to do that. Then they'll sue the electrician to recover.

What happens when your car is hit by someone who has no insurance? *Your* insurance
pays for the damage to your car and for your medical expenses -- then attempts to recover
whatever they can from the other driver personally.

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 10:37:02 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
trader_4 wrote in news:f52881f3-f4a6-4688-9527-e07e77324b52
@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 9:54:22 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 07/24/2015 09:49 PM, micky wrote:
Or what about if a licensed electrician is negligent? What if he wasn't
even trying to follow code. (Maybe he was drunk that day) Is the
homeowner still insured?

I asked the same question of my insurance agent. Her reply was as follows:

The insurance company will generally pay the first claim but...


They will "generally" pay a claim where the licensed electrician was
negligent? I'd immediately get a new agent and a new insurance
company. That's BS and it would leave homeowners, lenders, open
to huge exposure.

Of course they'll pay the claim. They have a contract with the homeowner that obligates
them to do that. Then they'll sue the electrician to recover.

What happens when your car is hit by someone who has no insurance? *Your* insurance
pays for the damage to your car and for your medical expenses -- then attempts to recover
whatever they can from the other driver personally.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree with you.
My point was that the poster said an insurance agent said that
they would "generally" pay a claim where a fire was caused by
a negligent electrician. I agree with you, they will always pay it.
The generally part is BS.

trader_4 wrote in news:24181283-6953-473a-a42b-506febb161e8
@googlegroups.com:

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree with you.
My point was that the poster said an insurance agent said that
they would "generally" pay a claim where a fire was caused by
a negligent electrician. I agree with you, they will always pay it.
The generally part is BS.

Ahh, yes, I did misunderstand you. Sorry.

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:00:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
| even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
| negligence).
|
You're insured for damage, not negligence. If
an accident is your fault you could be sued by
others or arrested.

The fact that you can be sued or arrested has nothing
to do with his point, which is that with auto accidents,
you're covered even though it was your negligence that
is the cause of the accident. You are similarly covered
for most negligence in the case of homeowner's insurance.
I've yet to hear of an insurance company that won't pay
a claim of a person tripping over the bucket you left
on the sidewalk or when you failed to clear ice or where
you left a pot burning on the stove and forgot about it,
burning up the kitchen.

I wonder though, if insurance didn't pay for a homeowner's negligence,
if they woudl be less negnlgent.

With a car, if you're negligent, there's usually as much chance you'll
be hurt as that someone else will, but you don't even have to be present
when a lot of home negligence causes injuries to people.

We should ban home insurance for personal injury and make everyone pay
the consquences. ;-)

And insurance companies seem to pay off on the vast majority
of claims where people did their own work. In all the times
this has been brought up here, discussed, I've seen only one
case where they insurance company refused the claim. And
that one was an extreme, well documented case in CA.
The homeowner who was building a new house, deliberately
put in a fireplace that had been denied, doing it after
the final inspection and the work was faulty. Even then,
IDK how it ultimately turned out, might have been settled
out of court, etc.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:00:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
| even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
| negligence).
|
You're insured for damage, not negligence. If
an accident is your fault you could be sued by
others or arrested.

The fact that you can be sued or arrested has nothing
to do with his point, which is that with auto accidents,
you're covered even though it was your negligence that
is the cause of the accident. You are similarly covered
for most negligence in the case of homeowner's insurance.
I've yet to hear of an insurance company that won't pay
a claim of a person tripping over the bucket you left
on the sidewalk or when you failed to clear ice or where
you left a pot burning on the stove and forgot about it,
burning up the kitchen.

I wonder though, if insurance didn't pay for a homeowner's negligence,
if they woudl be less negnlgent.

With a car, if you're negligent, there's usually as much chance you'll
be hurt as that someone else will, but you don't even have to be present
when a lot of home negligence causes injuries to people.

We should ban home insurance for personal injury and make everyone pay
the consquences. ;-)


Ban personal injury for who? The neighbor who trips on the bucket you
left on the sidewalk? Or you, the homeowner, who trips over it?
AFAIK, homeowner's insurance already will only pay for the first
claim. AFAIK, they won't pay for your own injury.

If you want to say that they shouldn't pay for damage, like a fire,
resulting from leaving a stove unattended, then I think you better
think the consequences of such a policy through a bit.