Electric outlet question

[BobT]

Quote:

I find it difficult to believe for many reasons. There are many electrical installations that do not require a permit that can cause a fire. For instance, replacing a light fixture, installing a fan, replacing an outlet or switch and such. Any of these have the potentioal to cause a fire if done incorectly. It would be financially exhaustive/impossible for an insurance company to prove who did any of these especially when a home has had multiple owners. I cant say as I've ever heard of someone who was denied a claim due to uninspected work, but I only know one person who has been through the experience.

My brother has had first hand knowledge of an electrical fire in his home. The fire department determined it was electrical, the insurance was paid. He was never asked for permits and he was the original owner.

Actually, to be legal, you must file for a permit and get the job inspected if you change a receptacle, light fixture, etc. Just because most homeowners do not get the permit does not make it legal.

Edit: I realize this would be nearly impossible to prove and I’m guessing in most cases the result is blamed on the wiring but we are also required to use things per labeled use. For example, if your light fixture is marked for 60W maximum and you install a 100W bulb and it is determined that it causes a fire, your insurance company may try to fight coverage.

[JohnMickish]

A homeowner can do electrical work on his PRIMARY RESIDENCE but needs a permit and an inspection. A homeowner cannot work on anything but his PRIMARY RESIDENCE, he cannot work on rental property, retail, commercial or any other property he owns without an electrical license. This is a Minnesota statute.

The pics of the romex in that box look to me like it was all fished down the wall since there is no strapping. It's pretty tough to make things look pretty when you have to get inside a finished wall. It could have been a contractor but I'm guessing not, or if it was it was a budget kind of shop.

[BoxMN]

So a homeowner can't do any wiring in his cabin? If that is the case, there is about a bazillion lawbreakers statute violaters in MN, me being one, I guess. Hard to believe they will let me wire my house, but not my cabin garage... Hmmm... may need to rethink my basement finishing at the cabin... not that I want to keep some electrician from making money, but that is how most people want to save some ca$h so they can even do the finishing at all, and if it gets inspected and passes, who cares who did it?...

[BobT]

A homeowner can do electrical work on his PRIMARY RESIDENCE but needs a permit and an inspection. A homeowner cannot work on anything but his PRIMARY RESIDENCE, he cannot work on rental property, retail, commercial or any other property he owns without an electrical license. This is a Minnesota statute.

The pics of the romex in that box look to me like it was all fished down the wall since there is no strapping. It's pretty tough to make things look pretty when you have to get inside a finished wall. It could have been a contractor but I'm guessing not, or if it was it was a budget kind of shop.

The part that caught my attention were the wire nuts in the wall to extend the wires. Talk about a fire waiting to happen.

[BobT]

So a homeowner can't do any wiring in his cabin? If that is the case, there is about a bazillion lawbreakers statute violaters in MN, me being one, I guess. Hard to believe they will let me wire my house, but not my cabin garage... Hmmm... may need to rethink my basement finishing at the cabin... not that I want to keep some electrician from making money, but that is how most people want to save some ca$h so they can even do the finishing at all, and if it gets inspected and passes, who cares who did it?...

There are other things that work the same way. Septic systems are one of them. My neighbor has a contractor's license but he is not licensed to do septic systems. Why? They are all required to pass inspection so why does it matter who operated the equipment as long as it is done correctly using approved methods?

I've often asked that question and there is one answer that comes to the front. The part about using approved methods. Obviously inspectors can't be standing around watching as you do the work to make sure you are using approved methods. Instead they come around after the work has been done and look it over to see if things appear to have been done correctly. For this reason it could be possible to do the work using improper methods that leave the job looking okay but in reality not really being okay.

A good example is building a septic system. There are specific rules of procedure that must be followed in the construction. The inspector comes along after the work is done but doesn't know if the contractor used a wheeled skidloader to form the mound for example. For this reason a contractor requires special licensing that identifies him as someone that has been properly trained. A non-certified contractor may not know all those behind the work rules and procedures and there may not be a practical way for the inspector to verify it after the fact.

[Macgyver55]

Actually, to be legal, you must file for a permit and get the job inspected if you change a receptacle, light fixture, etc. Just because most homeowners do not get the permit does not make it legal.

I found some city websites saying that replacing an outlet didn't require a permit, but adding one does. Replacing a light fixture didnt need a permit, changing the type of lighting does. The city of Minneapolis specificlly says you can replace GFI outlets without a permit. Its all pretty confusing without a standard rule throughout the state. And, as you said (and I agree) it would be literally impossible to track or prove who over the years had performed the work. Unless the insurance company could somehow prove it was you, or that you were negligent in some way they would have a difficult time denying a claim. Unless it was blatently obvious, I doubt they would spend so much time and money investigating, it just wouldnt be cost effective.

[mabr]

Actually pure, I'll have to disagree. Remember this is all I do, Insurance work. My experience has shown me most adjuster are more than willing to bend over back wards to please they're clients. Now if it was an obvious fraud case thats another story. But as mcgyver said they have to prove negligence on the home owners part. Thats why I said if the owner had no idea the work was not inspected they are not responsible.

As far as investigating a fire for cause, Just watch what happens when the insurance is looking at a total loss in excess of say 1 million and up. Ive seen these fire/arson investigators come in. Were talking CSI kind of stuff. Not necessarily the owner there looking t, they look for device failure, say a lamp manufacture, stove malfunction, refridgerator compressor being the cause, any person working on the building recently etc etc. If they can tie them to the cause there going after the company's liability insurance if they can prove fault. They'll spend alot $$$$ if it means saving them on a large loss.

I'm shaking my head at what I'm reading on here about pulling permits and assuming if your a licensed contractor you pull permits for everything. I've been at this for a while now almost 30 years, Prior to Insurance work I worked in residential strictly. You wouldn't believe how much work happens without permits. I've done it, as well as every contractor I know. Was I wrong, yeah I suppose but they were the type of jobs where LIFE, HEALTH, SAFETY issues were not a factor. Thats my undertanding of why we pull permits in the first place. BUT by the letter of the law were supposed to pull a permit if a job is over $500.00 (I think thats the $$$ amount still). Wanna guess how many jobs never have a permit for misc repairs. I'll guarantee its bunch.

I cant divulge to much about the loss in the picture. But what I'm pretty sure happened based on what I have seen. This property had a water intrusion issue within the last few years and it caused the wood to rot. Someone replaced and scabbed on to some of the rotten framing, while doing this they pulled and cut the wiring and re-routed it. They cut the wires and spliced instead of pulling to the nearest box or installing a junction box. They then buried the splices inside the walls hoping no one would even find out. Was the contractor licensed I dont know. But I do know they are looking into it.

[JohnMickish]

Bob, I did not notice the wirenuts in the wall, my bad. No, this was not fished, at least that part wasn't, it was just a [PoorWordUsage] job.

[JohnMickish]

So a homeowner can't do any wiring in his cabin? If that is the case, there is about a bazillion lawbreakers statute violaters in MN, me being one, I guess. Hard to believe they will let me wire my house, but not my cabin garage... Hmmm... may need to rethink my basement finishing at the cabin... not that I want to keep some electrician from making money, but that is how most people want to save some ca$h so they can even do the finishing at all, and if it gets inspected and passes, who cares who did it?...

Yes, there are a lot of homeowners that do things illegally. If you ever get bored look thru the states electrical code statutes, there is a surprizingly large amount of good info burried along with a bunch of junk.

[LightningBG]

What is a permit????

[pureinsanity]

What is a permit????

I agree

[LightningBG]

The last permit I applied for was when I was 15 and learning to drive.

[BobT]

Building permit along with the affidavit for the electrical work being done.

[pureinsanity]

Just rewired my house. I pulled a permit for that. But if I am going to add an outlet or a switch someplace I wont be pulling any more permits for that. Just gonna do it