4 ms·

"Because if the adjuster or whomever does find you have such modifications - they -will- blame those. And probably deny your claim and coverage (and probably c

"Because if the adjuster or whomever does find you have such modifications - they -will- blame those. And probably deny your claim and coverage (and probably cancel your policy)." I'm skeptical that an insurance company will be able to determine exactly what part you used and if it was UL listed unless you yourself tell them

CloudNetworking 7y ago
They don't need to. They'll just claim it was and you'll have to take them to court if you want to counter-claim that.
close04 7y ago
If an incident occurs and they identify additional components connected to the "trigger" you'd have to provide the whole "paper trail" for every single bit of your setup and show that it's above board: were the components certified for the use, were they installed by authorized personnel, were they operated properly, was the code you wrote for it to blame, etc. If you handled all the implementation yourself then it's hard to pass the responsibility along. While not impossible, it's still a high bar. And you wouldn't be in the best position to fight. If it's an electrical fire and they find modifications to the electrical wiring the chances of getting the insurance money are slim. Unless those modifications are explicitly covered by the insurance. Given the kind of exposure insurance companies have they are willing to invest a lot in fighting the payout. It's their business model.
- fr0sty 7y ago
  > you'd have to provide the whole "paper trail" for every single bit of your setup Can you cite any firsthand account of this sort of thing happening somewhere in the US? Given the ease with which people can reach millions of people with their tale of woe/outrage the fact that such stories are not readily available on social media makes me think this is mostly urban legend.
  - close04 7y ago
    Not sure I understand, you think it's an urban legend that an insurance company will do what it can to avoid a payout especially when the incident involves unauthorized modifications to the electrical wiring of the house, which ended up triggering a fire? There's no need to cite firsthand accounts, you will find this in your own insurance contract. Insurance works pretty much the same everywhere, unauthorized modifications (especially to critical systems) usually invalidate any insurance claim when they can be linked to the incident. [0] Electrical wiring, plumbing, structure of the building, safety or security systems, etc. And it makes perfect sense if you think about it. [0] http://www.insurancequotes.org/renters/3-major-diy-mistakes-that-can-affect-insurance/ http://www.insurancequotes.org/renters/3-major-diy-mistakes-...
    - fr0sty 7y ago
      I believe it is an urban legend that homeowner's insurance claims (specifically fire damage to structure or other contents) are being denied with any frequency because a 'homebrew' contraption was present in the home, adjacent to the start of the fire, or even the source of ignition. Here is a link to a sample Homeowner's policy: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.pdf https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.... Exclusion B on page 12 is probably the relevant section. It excludes loss due to "Faulty, inadequate or defective:... workmanship, re- pair, construction, renovation, remodeling,..." but also contains an "ensuing loss" exception. Here is an article about that: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/ensuing-loss-getting-around-a-property-policys-defective-construction-exclusion https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/ensuing-loss... > A classic example [of an ensuing loss exception] is if faulty repair resulted in improper wiring and the improper wiring caused a fire. Almost every insurer would pay for the fire damage, but not for the repair of the improper wiring.
      - close04 7y ago
        Two things to consider: 1) The insurance company will more often than not sue the party responsible for the faulty workmanship that triggered the incident to recover the money (I've seen this happen). In this case the owner is that party. 2) One real example is enough to show it's not a legend and you provided it yourself: > Some courts have upheld this rather cramped reading of the exclusion, while others construe it properly and require insurers to pay for the water damage Since it's upheld in court I find your statement that it's an urban legend pretty confusing. It's like showing a picture of the night sky to prove the Sun is a myth. YMMV of course, you should read your own contract to see what's stipulated and how comprehensive it is, and case law in your jurisdiction to see if courts would rule in your favor. But better be safe and start from the assumption that the "urban legend" is real since courts support it. It's the kind of legend that might cost you money.

CloudNetworking 7y ago

They don't need to. They'll just claim it was and you'll have to take them to court if you want to counter-claim that.

close04 7y ago

If an incident occurs and they identify additional components connected to the "trigger" you'd have to provide the whole "paper trail" for every single bit of your setup and show that it's above board: were the components certified for the use, were they installed by authorized personnel, were they operated properly, was the code you wrote for it to blame, etc. If you handled all the implementation yourself then it's hard to pass the responsibility along. While not impossible, it's still a high bar. And you wouldn't be in the best position to fight. If it's an electrical fire and they find modifications to the electrical wiring the chances of getting the insurance money are slim. Unless those modifications are explicitly covered by the insurance. Given the kind of exposure insurance companies have they are willing to invest a lot in fighting the payout. It's their business model.

fr0sty 7y ago
> you'd have to provide the whole "paper trail" for every single bit of your setup Can you cite any firsthand account of this sort of thing happening somewhere in the US? Given the ease with which people can reach millions of people with their tale of woe/outrage the fact that such stories are not readily available on social media makes me think this is mostly urban legend.
- close04 7y ago
  Not sure I understand, you think it's an urban legend that an insurance company will do what it can to avoid a payout especially when the incident involves unauthorized modifications to the electrical wiring of the house, which ended up triggering a fire? There's no need to cite firsthand accounts, you will find this in your own insurance contract. Insurance works pretty much the same everywhere, unauthorized modifications (especially to critical systems) usually invalidate any insurance claim when they can be linked to the incident. [0] Electrical wiring, plumbing, structure of the building, safety or security systems, etc. And it makes perfect sense if you think about it. [0] http://www.insurancequotes.org/renters/3-major-diy-mistakes-that-can-affect-insurance/ http://www.insurancequotes.org/renters/3-major-diy-mistakes-...
  - fr0sty 7y ago
    I believe it is an urban legend that homeowner's insurance claims (specifically fire damage to structure or other contents) are being denied with any frequency because a 'homebrew' contraption was present in the home, adjacent to the start of the fire, or even the source of ignition. Here is a link to a sample Homeowner's policy: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.pdf https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.... Exclusion B on page 12 is probably the relevant section. It excludes loss due to "Faulty, inadequate or defective:... workmanship, re- pair, construction, renovation, remodeling,..." but also contains an "ensuing loss" exception. Here is an article about that: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/ensuing-loss-getting-around-a-property-policys-defective-construction-exclusion https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/ensuing-loss... > A classic example [of an ensuing loss exception] is if faulty repair resulted in improper wiring and the improper wiring caused a fire. Almost every insurer would pay for the fire damage, but not for the repair of the improper wiring.
    - close04 7y ago
      Two things to consider: 1) The insurance company will more often than not sue the party responsible for the faulty workmanship that triggered the incident to recover the money (I've seen this happen). In this case the owner is that party. 2) One real example is enough to show it's not a legend and you provided it yourself: > Some courts have upheld this rather cramped reading of the exclusion, while others construe it properly and require insurers to pay for the water damage Since it's upheld in court I find your statement that it's an urban legend pretty confusing. It's like showing a picture of the night sky to prove the Sun is a myth. YMMV of course, you should read your own contract to see what's stipulated and how comprehensive it is, and case law in your jurisdiction to see if courts would rule in your favor. But better be safe and start from the assumption that the "urban legend" is real since courts support it. It's the kind of legend that might cost you money.