Having pulled a number of permits in Santa Clara County, CA over the
last 20 years:
0. If you ask SCC, "do I need a permit for xyz?", they will find a
permit to charge you for, no matter how small, trivial, or never before
on the permit schedule.
1. DIY is allowed, you sign the application saying so, BUT you still
must follow the codes. Some work (e.g. septic) is only allowed by
specifically approved contractors, only they can pick up the permit.
2. Inspectors didn't ask me who did the work I did, probably because it
"looked right", conformed to codes, and only minor corrections were needed.
3. Big projects did cause other upgrades to codes. For instance, do a
structural engineering review and bring up to current in an area being
remodeled. In a commercial structure, these upgrades are a given.
4. The most egregious was - inspect/pump the septic on property A in
order to get a septic permit on property B (A&B a mile apart!)
5. All new work is always to latest codes even though there might be
knob and tube wiring in the rest (residential) as I had. The
application date for the permit sets the date for codes that are applicable.
6. If new work is not to code and causes a problem and the insurance
company determines it as the cause, I think you are on very thin ice.
7. If codes are followed in no permit pulled work, I don't think there
is much the insurance company can object to.
YMMV.
Grant KZ1W
On 11/25/2011 8:03 AM, Jim Lux 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
|