Did you get a Permit for your install??

[Gunner]

If pulling a permit is required for payout, then why are there insurance co. writing policies when no permit exists.

I hope everyone who sweeps there own chimney keeps photographic evidence. The fine print may say "cleaned and inspected atleast yearly" If you have a chimney fire and no record of cleaning you are S.O.L.

If I forget to close the door after loading the stove and my house burns down, was the stove still installed incorrectly?

 

[jamorris]

I know you are at least realistic enough to agree that you are certainly taking your chances without one. agreed?

So, remember, this is a DISCUSSION forum, and if our members really want to be safer I would suggest not burning wood at all - and replacing and maintaining their heating systems regularly...and not using a motorcycle for sure.

YOU LEAVE MY SCOOT OUTTA DIS!

Jeeze! I see tornadoes regularly. I am going to worry about a plug in appliance?????? I got insulated double wall out through a Glass Block basement window. Stove is installed as per maker, who has received National Certification. If I get burnt, I'll figure it as a Tornado hitting smack dab on top of my ownself. BTW, I can grab aholt of the pipe and hang on for as long as my bored self can tolerate and that pipe is not too hot.

As for risk taking,,,,,,,,,, I am on my second marriage. The Scooter is safer. But, the second marriage seems to be working out nicely.

Jerry

 

[jqgs214]

Wow,

Did not mean to start a rucuss. My insurance agent said the Ins. Co. didnt even need to know (we told them anyway) as long as it was an insert and not a free standing fireplace. My house has a C.O. for a fireplace and my Ins.CO. is considering my insert a fireplace. Mrs-GVA would you now pay my claim or no?? BTW I have no permit. Thanks and sorry.

 

[Mrs-GVA]

Just to make sure I am correct, discussed with my legal counsel at work....here is the response:

If a permit is required by the city or town, then it's a law. If the homeowner doesn't get a permit where the law requires one, then the homeowner is breaking the law. Homeowners insurance does not have to pay a claim when the loss includes the violation of a law. So, under the scenario you gave, if the homeowner was required to get a permit, by law, but failed to do so, then the Homeowners Carrier could deny coverage to the homeowner if the installation was faulty and there was a fire. The mortgage company would probably get paid - but the homeowner likely wouldn't see a dime because it would all go to the mortgagor.

Again, no two claims are alike. This is based on the general rule. Again....if you don't pull a permit, not my problem, GVA and I sleep like little babies knowing we adhered to the laws of our jurisdiction.

 

[webbie]

Mr. Hunky does not think a permit is required to install an attic fan - I can assure him that running the electric to it, as well as cutting a hole in the roof and installing it are actions which many (or all) localities would consider permit types of jobs.

WX, you did not start a ruckus.

As you see by the thread above, all the other parties - both pro and con - simply give their experience. I do not flame on Ms. or BeGreen when they give their facts and opinions. But when a member starts his first response to me accusing me of banning users, irresponsibility as well as my users of having low IQ's, it ruins the tone of a thread. Heck, I've been accused of being responsible for school shooting (that was another time), because I once created a comic strip.

The person who jaywalks is not responsible for all pedestrian deaths, the person who smokes pot did not cause the crackhead to have a baby, and the person who has sex did not start the AIDS crisis. But the person who falsely accuses others of actions (true, false or in-between) without simply taking part in a conversation - and who thinks their "facts" are the only ones existing....well, I really wonder why such people even bother to converse. Like me, these experts should start their own sites. Since these people and their comPatriots are smart (have high IQ's), they would naturally gravitate there.

 

[webbie]

Just to make sure I am correct, discussed with my legal counsel at work....here is the response:

So, under the scenario you gave, if the homeowner was required to get a permit, by law, but failed to do so, then the Homeowners Carrier could deny coverage to the homeowner if the installation was faulty and there was a fire. The mortgage company would probably get paid - but the homeowner likely wouldn't see a dime because it would all go to the mortgagor.

Again, no two claims are alike. This is based on the general rule. Again....if you don't pull a permit, not my problem, GVA and I sleep like little babies knowing we adhered to the laws of our jurisdiction.

Good explanation of the insurance opinion of your counsel.

OTOH, what if the installation was faulty, and it was inspected? Is installing contrary to the manual illegal? (I would think it might be, since the code says the manual must be followed, so one leads to the other)?

Would the insurance company pay then?

Actually, the thread is going somewhat OT, so maybe we will split and have another which specifically addresses our guesses as to whether insurance companies will pay claims in the case of faulty situations. As Ms. GVA so clearly points out "each situation is different. The person who plugs their electric heater into an extension cord that has a big tag on it telling them not to do may be acting illegally......in the respect of all that furniture and bedding that says "do not remove this tag under threat of law".
http://ask.yahoo.com/20040726.html

Personally, I am ready for a celebrity death match between Hunky and Caveman.....my money is on Caveman due to the small head of Bravo and also Cavemans axe.

 

[begreen]

FWIW, our county requires a permit for wood stoves. When I called the insurance company last year and told them I was pulling out both the old stove installation and the fireplace and replacing them with one new installation, I asked about needing a permit. Their answer was, "why? you're already covered for a woodstove?" Our stove installer (a major seller in the region with multiple stores) said they didn't usually pull permits and were reluctant because they were working out of county. It was up to me. We already had a mechanical permit pulled for the heatpump so no big deal, but there was resistance from two of the 3 agencies involved. The county of course was happy to take the money, but the inspection was a quick look at best.

 

[webbie]

Here is the east, instead of counties what we have done is create a nightmare of hundreds of towns each with their own jurisdictions. NJ, as I remember, had over 800 local governments...and that is where the permits are pulled and questions asked. For many decades the inspectors were virtually allowed to make up their own rules (on top of codes, etc.) - now, at least they are supposed to follow some direction from the state. However, real world experience is similar to BG. No doubt if you asked about replacing stoves you would get different answers from different towns.

When the internet first started getting big, they claimed sooner or later government would be going mostly virtual. It would be really nice if one could submit a question or even do the full application online....this would provide a trail of audit if needed. If the locality said no permit needed, you'd at least have an email saying so.

Although there is no summary to this thread, it is clear that at the very minimum that the homeowners insurance company should be informed of any solid fuel (or other attached heaters) use in a home. Perhaps it would be good to have it in writing from them that they have received the information from you.

Many of these are moot points since a lot of installers will not put in a new installation without a permit. However (again guessing), I would say that a vast percentage of chimney relining jobs and all other such things done by the thousands of chimney sweeps are usually not permitted (no permit pulled). I think they (wrongly) consider them repairs or upgrades.......of course, so do many inspectors, so it can hardly be expected for a customer or installer to know more than the locality about such a thing.

This thread reminds me of an MSG thread last winter - turns out that MSG told us that in Colorado it is quite normal for stove shops to sell wood stoves which sit in front of pre-fab fireplaces and then are vented through the chimney - with a liner. Never mind that such installations are not "legal" by any code or manual anywhere, but they were all inspected and approved by local authorities. As an installer and seller of such equipment, I would NEVER do such an installation. This is not to say that MSG or his bosses are fools......but that there are vast differences in the way things are handled regionally. If such an installation burned the house down, there would not be anywhere to find even one instance in writing where such a job was "by the book".

 

[Gunner]

The question still remains;

If pulling a permit is required for payout, and to be legal, why are insurance companies writing policies (taking your money) for ILLEGAL unpermitted installs?

 

[MrGriz]

The thing that really gets me is that pulling a permit and having an inspection done may cover your butt legally and with the ins. co, but in many cases has nothing to do with ensuring a safe installation.

How many stories have we shared and read where the so called professional installer did a hack job and then the inspector signed off on it. While this does not seem to be the rule, it sure comes up more often than you would like it to. Mrs. GVA's statement that a stove or insert installed without a permit must have been improperly installed is flawed logic and a shining example of an insurance company looking for a way to automatically deny a claim. If a thorough inspection by an expert to determine the cause of the fire cannot determine whether or not the appliance was properly installed, how can it confidently determine the cause of the fire.

I am completely confident that my installation is safe, code compliant, safe, done to manufacturers specifications, safe and did I mention safe. I did it myself after a lot of research. I would also classify my installation as a very straight forward one, which fit into my skill level and ability. I put an insert into a sound, masonry fireplace with a good clean chimney. Had there been existing problems or major reconstruction required, I would have re-evaluated my decision to install the insert myself and probably would have hired the job out. My reluctance to pull a permit has nothing to do with the installation itself. I just don't believe that an inspection would add any value or benefit, other than the signed piece of paper, which I am beginning to believe I should have.

I did check with and notify my agent that I was installing an insert into my existing fireplace (which they already knew about). He said it was not a problem and that I was covered, since the fireplace was pre-existing. If I had that in writing I would feel better, but since I don't I think I'll go pull the permit and have the inspection done. As I said above, it seems to be more of a hassle than it's worth, but if it helps to close any loop holes or cover my butt I better get it done.

 

[webbie]

That one was answered in "every situation is different".

It may be illegal for insurance companies not to make certain you read their fine print. A lot of things are illegal. Maybe we should do some google searches on "my homeowners insurance won't pay" and see what some real world experiences are...(no kidding).

I realize my experience is limited - it consists of being in remodeling for 10 years and the stove retail and wholesale biz for another 20. Certainly it is 100% anecdotal, but I never had a customer in either case (construction or stoves) tell me about their homeowners insurance not paying for "normal" problems. I probably have more respect for insurance companies than some do - because I think they are realists and it is better customer service to pay (and increase premiums a bit), than to become meanies and keep premiums low.

The insurance agents who told me (that they would cover most anything, permitted or not) were customers of mine...and one was my agent, but this was 20 years ago. Things may have changed, although it is more likely to be regional. There are usually more controls as you go up in population density. If I am an attorney, I'll betcha that it is more likely that my homeowners will pay for an "illegal" problem than if I am a poor single mom. The Golden Rule (whoever had the most Gold, rules) is always in effect in commercial transactions. That and "the squeaking wheel" are of utmost importance.

When you take any situation down to the fine print, there are always ways to deny anything. One of my favorite saying about Government is that when you ask, the answer is usually NO. That is because no is a lot easier than yes (with caveats). Luckily, things are more mellow up here in semi-rural western ma.....and in many towns, but I have seen both sides of the spectrum.

The situation is easy for the person who knows nothing - hire a pro and the pro should get a permit and inspection. For all those others, such as replacements, upgrades, DIY'ers, folks with local jurisdictions that will not answer their questions....well, then it gets a bit muddier. I'm hoping no one turns me in for that fence, although the tax accessor was here recently taking pictures of my back shed (no foundation 10x16)......if this continues, I'll have to move to NH or Idaho (live free or die)

 

[karl]

Since this thread seems to have began to turn into insurance bashing I'm going to chime in again. Everybody complains about insurance fraud, but what about the fraud the insurance companies commit. I know a guy who's father died and the family went to collect the $100,000 insurance policy that the guy had been paying on his whole life. The insurance company said we will give you $75,000. You can sue us if you want but the lawyers will take 1/3 of it and you will only get $66,000. Also, what about how they over inflate replacement cost. The replacement cost they said I had to have works out to almost $187.00 a square foot. This was ten years ago. I bet if I got a new policy, they would up it to well over $200.00 a square foot. My house is nice, but I'm sure it's no nicer than what everybody else here has. You could buy my house for less than half of what they forced me to insure it for.

 

[webbie]

Well, that is definitely OT, but I suppose it works both ways. I know a lot more people who took advantage of insurance companies than I know who got taken advantage of - but, then again, that is just my experience. Those folks whose claims are getting turned down after Katrina might tell you something else.

It relates to the thread in this manner though - best thing to do is to never need to collect on the insurance! However, my son totaled two cars in two years once, and I was pleased at the lack of problems getting the payout.

So, the real moral of the story is to be safe....which, then again, is somewhat the moral of this entire site! Safety is always a matter of degree, and each of us often chooses whether we want to sky dive, replace 220V circuit breakers, etc. - I will do the 220V, but I am not jumping anytime soon. I will also continue downhill skiing until I either hurt myself badly or am unable to get off the lift, etc.

 

[GVA]

Mr Griz here is what she said regarding the Building Inspector (I put it in bold)

Now for a quick summary for the rest...
She's tired of beating a dead horse regarding permit or no permit.
Maybe I can break it down for everyone here....
Did it cause the fire?
Was it permitted?
Did you answer yes to both these than she'll pay the claim...
It doesn't matter if you are a moron stoking it with duraflames and 2x4's soaked in gasoline (unless it's arson).....
Now if you answered no to the permit part....... Then comes an investigation, and most likley......Denial......
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES............
If you have a specific question address it to the people who SHOULD be inspecting the permitted work or your homeowners insurance company..

MRS.GVA is just telling you if you got a permit your chance for recovery is far greater than without the permit...
Simple :smirk:

I'm not paying. Sorry. It obviously wasn't installed correctly to have caused the fire.

That's silly. A chimney fire could burn a house down and a chimney fire can happen on a properly installed stove.

If the permit was pulled, and cleared by the inspector, regardless of his competency, the claim would need to be honored. I have to assume that the inspector is an expert and approved the install to be hired by the city/town.

 

[MrGriz]

I agree GVA. I wasn't trying to bash the insurance companies or adjusters. My point is that my faith is in the installation I did, not the signed paper from the inspector. Until the insurance issue came up, I would not have gone for the permit and inspection. Since this issue came up, I may have found the one redeeming qulaity of the permit.

Edit: This thread shouldn't turn (or have turned) into an insurance bashing forum (there's probably one for that somewhere). MrsGVA's points were enough to make me believe that I probably should have the inspection done to cover my butt. I do disagree with her statement that an un-permitted installation must be flawed. I can also see her frustration with the direction of this thread and the kicking of this dead mule.

 

[BrotherBart]

I agree GVA. I wasn't trying to bash the insurance companies or adjusters. My point is that my faith is in the installation I did, not the signed paper from the inspector. Until the insurance issue came up, I would not have gone for the permit and inspection. Since this issue came up, I may have found the one redeeming qulaity of the permit.

Edit: This thread shouldn't turn (or have turned) into an insurance bashing forum (there's probably one for that somewhere). MrsGVA's points were enough to make me believe that I probably should have the inspection done to cover my butt. I do disagree with her statement that an un-permitted installation must be flawed. I can also see her frustration with the direction of this thread and the kicking of this dead mule.

Griz talk to your insurance agent first. They insured that place with a wood burning appliance, the fireplace, and all the insert did was make it safer. These are the words of my agent. "We insured the house with a working fireplace and a chimney connection in the basement. We don't need anything else for you to use them.". They are jerks on a couple of other things I am fighting with them on but on the stoves they are "Good Hands".

As to the permit. Call as Mr. Cecil R. Elkimeg Esq. or something and ask a few questions first. Most localities will fine your butt for an after the fact permit/inspection.

Oh, and the horse never gets beaten to death. This is a twice a year event. Next will be the convection vs. radiant heat row and the "how much does wood shrink" donneybrook. Cat vs. non-cat isn't scheduled again until September I think, I will have to look at the schedule.

We can't do burn/don't burn cardboard this year because Dylan got whacked before Tony Soprano, so the quadra-annual pine/no pine festival will take its place.

 

[GVA]

I agree GVA. I wasn't trying to bash the insurance companies or adjusters. My point is that my faith is in the installation I did, not the signed paper from the inspector. Until the insurance issue came up, I would not have gone for the permit and inspection. Since this issue came up, I may have found the one redeeming qulaity of the permit.

Edit: This thread shouldn't turn (or have turned) into an insurance bashing forum (there's probably one for that somewhere). MrsGVA's points were enough to make me believe that I probably should have the inspection done to cover my butt. I do disagree with her statement that an un-permitted installation must be flawed. I can also see her frustration with the direction of this thread and the kicking of this dead mule.

No problem Mr.Griz
Just think about the insurance co and their investigation procedures... Like a car accident first thing done ....Who's fault is it.. correct...
now let's say a guy... we'll say 22 year old joe nitwit, was driving and was rear-ended by joe schmo, in mass the guy that caused the rear-ending is automatically at fault.
Now for a variable..... the guy in front (joe nitwit) doesn't have a licence that is..... he's not permitted to drive...
Joe schmo's insurance will not accept liability because Joe nitwit had no right to be driving in the first place (like Paris)... Claim denied... Joe schmo's ins. has to now go after joe nitwit.... It's a grey area too many variables out there in the world for every scenario or situation.
But currently what's done legally and illegally is defined in MOST areas, but we can read grey into everything...
Can you tell I live with an Insurance guru???????
BB you forgot the "my wood stove is better than your pellet stove" topic ;-P

 

[littlesmokey]

Guess I am naive, but I just don't see the trade off to save a hundred bucks and not get the permit. If your insurance can be canceled, or a claim denied for not getting one, your loss is significant, in my case a hundred grand. I put a pellet stove in my office. The city and county said there is no permit requirement, got that in writing. Called the insurance company, no requirement to get a permit, no problem, they didn't have to send an inspector. Took a while to get that one in writing, but did get it, and had a rider added to the policy that there was an open burning appliance installed, cost me an extra two bucks a month. Then I did the install. Freaked my neighbor out the first time it started, he thought the building was on fire, so I probably should have added to my liability, because he almost had a heart attack.

There are lots of un-necessary fees for all kinds of things, but if you should have a permit, or it is required by law, pay the price and take your chances. My own experience says the ones who refuse have much more to hide and I think it may be a little embarrassing for these folks to let the inspector inside.

 

[begreen]

So if the fire is from Duraflames it's ok? Somehow I doubt it. My suspicion is the adjuster would say "used in violation of the stove manufacturer's guidelines, page 0xx of the manual."

What's ironic about this thread is that what seems to be the real concern is insurance and not the safety of the installation. That should be the motivation, but as noted, not many inspectors are as thorough as Elk.Too bad. If you pay the money you should at least have the peace of mind of a job well done. However, considering how some insurance corporations have been operating, the concern is understandable.

 

[littlesmokey]

So if the fire is from Duraflames it's ok? Somehow I doubt it. My suspicion is the adjuster would say "used in violation of the stove manufacturer's guidelines, page 0xx of the manual."

What's ironic about this thread is that what seems to be the real concern is insurance and not the safety of the installation. That should be the motivation, but as noted, not many inspectors are as thorough as Elk.Too bad. If you pay the money you should at least have the peace of mind of a job well done. However, considering how some insurance corporations have been operating, the concern is understandable.

You are a Moderator, and I am a newbie, but I think you are wrong. I think we are trying to decide whether two hundred in expenses is worth your home.

I don't see a forensic evaluation of the cause of the fire as the root issue. I see some folks trying to fudge the rules and if it goes bad, the insurance company should pick up the slack. Well, that certainly sounds like a fraud to me. If a claim is denied because you are to stupid, then this should be part of the policy, but if you did a no-no and you want the insurance to pick up the STUPID, then you are way off base. If you create a hazardous situation, you should stand the loss.

You are a real cynic if you think an adjuster's is going to analyse the loss to find why you are not worthy to collect. They really aren't paid enough to try. I have had losses and when the adjuster said it was my fault, I took the hit. Too many seem to think they have a right to take from the insurance companies. I am not an advocate for the insurance folks, but I sure hate paying from the takers.

 

[webbie]

That is a silly way - in my opinion - to frame the question...whether $100 is worth your home!

People being people, let me give you a more natural type of scenario. Joe blow has done $100,000 of work on his home including an addition, a converted basement, a new kitchen and bath and more all without a permit. Now he wants to install a stove. He does not want to invite the building inspector....and possibly also then the tax collector - to see all this work!

Or, maybe the FORMER homeowner did all this non-permitted work, and therefore the property taxes are low. The new homeowner does not want the house taxes to increase substantially.

I am not approving of these situations, but I KNOW them to be par for the course....just do the math. If you believe (as I do) that more (small remodel) work is done without permits than with, then those billions in improvements are not being taxed.

Don't shoot the messenger - the point is that it is not $100 we are often talking about.....people have their reasons - from distrust of government to just an aversion to having ANYONE in their home....... So, as with most subjects we try to simplify here, it just ain't that easy.

Well, actually it is....just as easy as making sure everyone pays 100% of their federal and state taxes. After all, the penalty for not doing that is quite serious. Yet offenders are probably our own neighbors (or ourselves, in some cases)....

Yeah, this is a repeat of many threads. Someone actually asked a yes or no question, but the answers were more than asked....

There is a certain streak of "freedom" in this country that causes people to do strange things...from having 50 guns in the house to protect themselves to distrust of authority. The same dude who stocks water and canned goods in the basement just ain't gonna invite the local authorities in to see his shelter or his stove.

 

[webbie]

I put a pellet stove in my office. The city and county said there is no permit requirement, got that in writing. .

Of course, according to the experts here - you did and do need a permit...just because they make a mistake does not mean you are not liable. It's like the IRS helpline which is wrong 40% of the time - you cannot later claim that they gave you the wrong advice......

So, you are probably one of those bad "illegals".

Where do you live.....? (state).

 

[littlesmokey]

In for a pound in for a penny. Now I take on the Web. Well, simply put if you do an illegal $100,000 in remodel and the house burns down because you thought you knew what you were doing, but didn't and you want to save the taxes, or insurance payments, WHY do you think the insurance company should reward you? A Stupid F^^( justification for risking your life and your neighbors.

Honestly, my shop is code, it is so code, they want to show others how to do it from my shop. Did I pull permits, NO. I bought the building with the install and let the inspectors loose before I took posession. All my electrical is in conduits, all my HVAC is outward vented, clean air supplied, the water is rated at 90 psi and runs full to the last tap. I have two hour burn walls and vents to separate all. So bring on the inspectors..... My insurance company is a national firm, but they have one issue. The structure is over 80 years old. They think nothing that old is safe. Well, the short and sweet is I am looking for a new company and will grant full access to all inspectors, but I know I am safe, not because anyone told me, but because I have seen what is there and I know what I am looking at and I know it is done right.

 

[littlesmokey]

I put a pellet stove in my office. The city and county said there is no permit requirement, got that in writing. .

Of course, according to the experts here - you did and do need a permit...just because they make a mistake does not mean you are not liable. It's like the IRS helpline which is wrong 40% of the time - you cannot later claim that they gave you the wrong advice......

So, you are probably one of those bad "illegals".

Where do you live.....? (state).

Well in southern Idaho, if the official says no, then the answer is no.Your experts are totally wrong. Screw the experts from your world. In writing is legal in court, do you want to challenge it? You can give me the "your experts" phrase, but my position is you are wrong.

You are welcome to besmirch my name, but I am legal in all ways. What you would like to think in not is in your mind. How safe is your total electrics and volatile exhausts?

It's not reasonable to label a deserter a Tax evader and a scofflaw when you are not dealing with anytihing but a very real issue that doesn't fit your mold.

I will take a few hits, but you will not be able to silence the facts. You push, I shove. Match your data to mine, admit your wrong and I will admit mine. It's your site, but if you are really open, you need to give those who don't agree an opportunity to express their opinion. Your hammer is 10 lbs. heavy, but mine is 15.

 

[webbie]

Hey, little........I guess my being sarcastic does not transfer well over writing to the web.......

If you read the thread earlier, you will see that I definitely come down on your side - we (the consumers) often try to do the right thing, but find ourselves misled by the authorities........ the building official who used to hang here has sworn up and down that it is national code that things have to be done a certain way. He is probably right in point of fact (letter of the law).....but, as they say, the reality on the ground is often quite different. Things look different in Idaho, WV and TX than they do in NYC or Ma. - Ma. is arguably the most heavily regulated state in the USA because many fire codes and building codes were created here - and for good reason. People lived close together in cities and when your house burned, so did mine.

But in other areas, the attitude is "heck, if you want to burn down your place, be my guest - doesn't affect me"....

Having lived in WV and TN., I certainly don't remember seeing permits on the 1700 acres that we were building stuff on.....may have changed by now, but I doubt there were any inspectors to be found back in those hollows.

So, hey, I'm on your side - hold back on the death penalty and execution (of me) for an appeal.