Electrical fire

[ramsy]

It is not listed as an appliance and there is nothing in the NEC that can be cited to require the use of listed furniture. There just is nothing that, in general, requires the use of listed products in a home.

For furniture used to park my lazy butt, then I agree, no utilization equipment, not considered an appliance.

However, Appliances are defined in article 100 as utilization equipment, which may have multiple functions, such as massage my back, charge my phone, and utilize motors to recline.

NEC 100 Appliance. Utilization equipment, generally other than industrial, that is normally built in standardized sizes or types and is installed or connected as a unit to perform one or more functions such as clothes washing, air-conditioning, food mixing, deep frying, and so forth. (CMP-17)

Robots also fit the definition nicely, especially when charging, plugged into an outlet.

422.1 Scope. This article covers electrical appliances used in any occupancy.

422.6 Listing Required. All appliances operating at 50 volts or more shall be listed.

 

[ramsy]

There is no "out" for the insurance company, unless your policy would specifically require the use of listed equipment. I have never seen that in a dwelling unit fire insurance policy.

Federal and state regulations for furniture flammability wont approve electrical components in contact with combustibles.

Furniture Flammability Testing

As a recognized leader in fire safety and certification, our flammability testing for fabrics and furniture can help ensure that your products meet nationally recognized standards and regulations — providing third-party verification of their safety.

www.ul.com

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Federal and state regulations for furniture flammability wont approve electrical components in contact with combustibles.

Furniture Flammability Testing

As a recognized leader in fire safety and certification, our flammability testing for fabrics and furniture can help ensure that your products meet nationally recognized standards and regulations — providing third-party verification of their safety.

www.ul.com

What does that have to do with my comment about "no outs for insurance companies"?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

For furniture used to park my lazy butt, then I agree, no utilization equipment, not considered an appliance.

However, Appliances are defined in article 100 as utilization equipment, which may have multiple functions, such as massage my back, charge my phone, and utilize motors to recline.

NEC 100 Appliance. Utilization equipment, generally other than industrial, that is normally built in standardized sizes or types and is installed or connected as a unit to perform one or more functions such as clothes washing, air-conditioning, food mixing, deep frying, and so forth. (CMP-17)

Robots also fit the definition nicely, especially when charging, plugged into an outlet.

422.1 Scope. This article covers electrical appliances used in any occupancy.

422.6 Listing Required. All appliances operating at 50 volts or more shall be listed.

I am not going to agree on this ...there is zero application of the NEC for the problem that is being discussed in this thread.

 

[petersonra]

I am not going to agree on this ...there is zero application of the NEC for the problem that is being discussed in this thread.

I am inclined to agree with Don. In any case, we don't know what really happened.

 

[ramsy]

What does that have to do with my comment about "no outs for insurance companies"?

I believe Gadfly56 answered that question earlier in post #19. "Insurance policy does not cover unlawful acts"

Unfortunately when insurance accuses joe homeowner of unlawful acts, he is presumed guilty until his lawyer can prove otherwise.

Most homeowners can't afford long court processes to fight insurance, before court costs exceed the equity in their home. So they settle for peanuts, out of court.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I believe Gadfly56 answered that question earlier in post #19. "Insurance policy does not cover unlawful acts"

Unfortunately when insurance accuses joe homeowner of unlawful acts, he is presumed guilty until his lawyer can prove otherwise.

Most homeowners can't afford long court processes to fight insurance, before court costs exceed the equity in their home. So they settle for peanuts, out of court.

Again, I have never seen that language in any home fire insurance policy. In addition the purchase and use of a product from a retail store would never be considered an unlawful act on the part of the purchaser.

 

[rambojoe]

Plus, there are laws that severely punish ins. companies who accuse clients of fraud with no proof. This usually comes un documented ( no proof of bad faith) and over the phone...

 

[ramsy]

Bad faith insurance is what lawyers tell homeowners, to convince them they have a case worth fighting. Gullibility is good for business in a de-regulated economy.

The residential industry's labor exploits, subject to Construction Defect Law, may void property insurance claims before its occupied, if not after DIY remodels & renters pull batteries from the smokes.

Unlike DIY kings of their castle, Non-residential commercial property managers are known to scrub down contractors more carefully to prevent uninsurable losses.

Managed properties put locks on equipment rooms & ladders to prevent roof access; to keep tenants from touching the building, hurting themselves, or voiding insurance policy that specifies qualified persons, or insured employees only.