"Tom Pendergast" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns93B1C2E5D4313tomicubedcom@130.133.1.4...
> On 07 Jul 2003, Thomas D. Horne wrote:
> > Trent© wrote:
> >> "B. S." wrote:
>
> >>>If you have a fire and it's traced to your "not-to-code" wiring
> >>>project, your homeowner's insurance will not be worth the paper it's
> >>>printed on.
>
> >> Do you know this for a fact?...or are you speculating?
>
> > I was called to testify against a homeowner who did his own work which
> > then caused the loss in question. The judge would not even let the
> > issue go to trial. He lectured the plaintiff home owners attorney for
> > even filing because "it is a legal absurdity to claim that an insurer
> > must compensate for the results of an unlawful act."
>
> Ridiculous. It is no more "unlawful" for homeowners in many
> municipalities to work on their own electric than it is to water
> their lawn.
>
> --
> TP

Where do you live, Tommy? In the Magic Kingdom?

"Trent©" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:13:07 -0400, "Thomas D. Horne"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Trent© wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:49:58 GMT, "Banister Stairwell"
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you have a fire and it's traced to your "not-to-code" wiring
> >>>project, your homeowner's insurance will not be worth the paper it's
printed
> >>>on.
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you know this for a fact?...or are you speculating?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope you had a nice 4th weekend...
> >>
> >> Trent
> >>
> >> Help keep down the world population...have your partner spayed or
> >> neutered.
> >
> >I was called to testify against a homeowner who did his own work which
> >then caused the loss in question. The judge would not even let the
> >issue go to trial. He lectured the plaintiff home owners attorney for
> >even filing because "it is a legal absurdity to claim that an insurer
> >must compensate for the results of an unlawful act."
>
> The judge's OPINION is absurd.
>
> This should have been appealed.
>
> If I'm driving my car...and I break the law by running a red
> light...you mean to tell me my insurance company doesn't have to pay
> if I have an accident?
>
> DIY repairs and installations are done every day. Just because there
> may be some minor violation of the law doesn't void an insurance
> policy's coverage. Nor does a DIY repair necessarily make it inferior
> to a licensed contractor's work.
>
> There's only a few instances where an insurance company doesn't have
> to pay...aside from the items that are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the
> policy. Fraud, etc. are some of those.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent

This is urtle.

we are talking about a homeowner wiring his own home and not calling the
city inspector, not following nec code, and work was done without any
inspection at all as city codes require. The insurance company can get away
with not paying if it is determined that the homeowner did not follow city
and state nec codes. If you wire the house with very / grossly/ bad ly /
done. The insurance company will want to know what contractor did the work
and his contractor liability will have to pay for the fire. now if it is the
homeowner that did the bad job. they will pay for the house to be replaced
but then turn around and sue the homeowner to get the money back. You can't
collect for the new home with pending sueing going on in the matter. The
insurance company is going to win.

now you spoke about if i run a red lite and the insurance does not have to
pay. that would be a accident or chance happening. this would be called a
accident and not call a knowing before hand crime. If you was found in court
that you run the red lite on purpose and knew to stop but just run it
because you wanted to see cars crash. they will not pay for you but will pay
for the others. A case like this is like you drive your car off in the river
and the insurance found out that you did it on purpose and knew that you was
doing it and could have stop driving in there anytime you wanted to. they
will not pay.

The insurance company are getting smarter everyday.

TURTLE

"Tom Pendergast" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns93B1C2E5D4313tomicubedcom@130.133.1.4...
> Ridiculous. It is no more "unlawful" for homeowners in many
> municipalities to work on their own electric than it is to water
> their lawn.
>
> --
> TP

This is Turtle.

Tom again here, If a home owner wires his house and does not file with the
city as to be inspected and be done to local and state codes. The home owner
is the electrical contractor which is himself and the blame falls on the
[electrical contractor / Homeowner now] and his Contractor Liability
insurance will have to pay for the screw up and home owner usely don't carry
Contractor Liability. If the home owner does not follow the codes and does
it. The fault will fall on the installer / electrical contractor / now
homeowner. A home owner can not be held responsiable even if he sets fire to
his own house with gas and a match. it is OK for him to do as he pleases ,
but if he applies for insurance to pay for it. he is commiting a crime of
fraud to collect insurance. If he wires his house wrong and proved he was
wrong in wiring it. he can burn his house down and will not have a word said
to him, for it is his home. Now if he applies for insurance to pay for it.
he is committing insurance fraud.

The reason I'm speaking on this is State farm insurace compay was involved
with a freieds house that burned to the ground. the contractor that did the
job was found to be wrong in wiring that he did. The insurance company paid
for the home but sued the contractor and got the cost of the house from his
Contractor liability insurance. I and my friend spoke to the insurance
adjuster about the fault and if the home owner would be found to have wired
the home wrong and knew he was wrong like no inspection, or following city
and nec code. He said we will not pay a dime for you need to go back to the
wire mans insurance company for payment. Now it is a crime to not get a
permit to wire a house inside city limits where there is codes to follow and
it being the home owner doing the work. When wiring a house by the home
owner he like the Electrican has to get a permit and follow the codes just
like the electrican contractor. It is nothing wrong with wiring it wrong but
if you want insurace to pay for a crime. they will tell you. The wireman /
Electrican / Homeowner has or suppose to have contractors liability for not
following the codes. If your brother in law wired it. They will pay for the
house but sue your brother in law for the cost of the house.

Tom there is a NEC code out there somewhere that you lack the knownledge of
knowing it. Yes , Tom I've been in court on matter like this before and it
being from wiring of a gas furnace to a fire caused by too small of wire to
a pump house. The wire went over the top of my condenser and was not my
doing but it burnt off and fell down on the condenser area and set fire to
the side of the house. The electrical contyractor run the wire and did not
follow the code in doing so. he elevtrican's contractor liability had to pay
for the house. they had me involved because the electrican run a wire over
the top of my equipment and fell down and hit my equipment and started the
fire. I installed the hvac equipment but not any of the wiring that failed.
The insurace company has to name everybody to be sure they get the right
one. The electrican run all the electric service and wires even to my
equipment.

Please Tom know what your talking about before you go to judging and
deciding laws and what insurance companys can and can't do.

TURTLE

"Tom Pendergast" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns93B1C2E5D4313tomicubedcom@130.133.1.4...
> On 07 Jul 2003, Thomas D. Horne wrote:
> > Trent© wrote:
> >> "B. S." wrote:
>
> >>>If you have a fire and it's traced to your "not-to-code" wiring
> >>>project, your homeowner's insurance will not be worth the paper it's
> >>>printed on.
>
> >> Do you know this for a fact?...or are you speculating?
>
> > I was called to testify against a homeowner who did his own work which
> > then caused the loss in question. The judge would not even let the
> > issue go to trial. He lectured the plaintiff home owners attorney for
> > even filing because "it is a legal absurdity to claim that an insurer
> > must compensate for the results of an unlawful act."
>
> Ridiculous. It is no more "unlawful" for homeowners in many
> municipalities to work on their own electric than it is to water
> their lawn.
>
> --
> TP

Wrong..wrong...wrong...

But...like you care...

Thank god you live up north..and not near us..

"Trent©" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:26:17 GMT, "Banister Stairwell"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >If you're going to do any kind of electrical work on your home, it needs
to
> >adhere to national and regional codes. If you don't know what they are,
you
> >need to find out. If the work requires a permit, then *get one* and do
the
> >job right. Or, hire a professional to do the job right...either way. To
> >me, it's just not worth the risk to do it otherwise.
> >
>
> I agree. And here's a little story...that just happened to me
> today...as a good example.
>
> I got a piece of mail delivered today...that belonged to my neighbor.
> So I thought I'd just walk it over and put it in her box.
>
> Walked over in my walking shorts and bare feet, opened the lid on the
> mailbox...and got one HELL of a jolt. The mailbox had current going
> thru it!...and a pretty good jolt, at that.
>
> I could hardly believe it...so I folded the envelope up to put it thru
> the door handle. Got a jolt there, TOO!
>
> The whole front of the house...aluminum siding...is electrified! Must
> have something to do with her outside porch light.
>
> I've never run across this before...simply amazing.

Boy, that's a new one on me. My best guess about why the outside of her
house is electrified is that the normal path to ground has been broken or at
least compromised in some way. I wonder if a disconnected neutral wire
somewhere would cause this? Perhaps our resident professional electrician,
Thomas D. Horne will graciously jump in here and help us figure this one
out.

Hey, Tom... Have you run across a situation like this before? I'm sure
Trent would like to know the answer to this one, but I'm curious as well.

"Trent©" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> I keep thinking about all the times the mail got delivered...in the
> rain. No doubt, its the shoes that made the difference. I walked
> over in my bare feet...on concrete...lots of humidity and rain lately.
> What really surprised me is that the aluminum storm door has current
> going thru it, too.

Being curious, I posted this to an electrician's forum. The response was
that the wiring for one of the branch circuits (most likely serving the
porch light) has been cut and shorted to the siding, or a nail has been
driven into the wiring and is shorting to the siding.

She really needs to get it fixed.

On 09 Jul 2003, Banister Stairwell wrote:

> "Trent©" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> I keep thinking about all the times the mail got delivered...in the
>> rain. No doubt, its the shoes that made the difference. I walked
>> over in my bare feet...on concrete...lots of humidity and rain lately.
>> What really surprised me is that the aluminum storm door has current
>> going thru it, too.
>
> Being curious, I posted this to an electrician's forum. The response was
> that the wiring for one of the branch circuits (most likely serving the
> porch light) has been cut and shorted to the siding, or a nail has been
> driven into the wiring and is shorting to the siding.

...or whoever wired the porch light put the hot on the outer
conductor of the lamp socket instead og the inner tip. She's
getting some (un)healthy leakage to ground, probably through a
painted surface on the light fixture that's semi-conductive.
Not enough to cause an overcurrent situation and blow the
breaker, but enough to buzz the surrounding sufraces with some
big time leakage.

> She really needs to get it fixed.

Indeed.

--
TP

"Tom Pendergast" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns93B3B1530E7B2tomicubedcom@130.133.1.4...
> ...or whoever wired the porch light put the hot on the outer
> conductor of the lamp socket instead og the inner tip. She's
> getting some (un)healthy leakage to ground, probably through a
> painted surface on the light fixture that's semi-conductive.
> Not enough to cause an overcurrent situation and blow the
> breaker, but enough to buzz the surrounding sufraces with some
> big time leakage.
> --
> TP

Very doubtful! It is more than likely that it the nail in the wire, as
suggested by the banister's query. If a nail has been driven through the
hot wire it wouldn't short out, unless they grounded the siding. A bare
foot person touchin' the siding becomes the ground, in this case, albeit a
weak (and hopefully brief) ground.

Op