AFCI Michigan

Status
Not open for further replies.

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Scroll down to "Part 5: Residential Code" on page one: http://michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_2015_residential_code_502813_7.pdf

This goes into effect on February 8, 2016.


This is the "commercial" code and amendments that went into effect on June 18, 2015: http://michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_electrical_2014_part_8_rules_492610_7.pdf?20150623100911


In short, if you are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new home in the state of Michigan, you are not afforded the protection of AFCIs. However, if you happen to live in other than a one- and two-family dwelling (R1, R2, R4 Occupancy), you are afforded the protection of AFCIs. This is unfortunate and tends to result in lawsuits against contractors simply following the rules.

So be careful and consult your legal counsel...
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
I talked to the state about this a few weeks ago. The guy I talked to said that basically the new Mich. Res. Code did away with the AFCI requirements in 1 and 2 family dwellings, effective in Feb. of 2016. He did say that there is a bill going through the state right now that would negate the above and require AFCI's.

Basically what he said was that 'the fight wasn't over yet' and what goes into effect in Feb may be changed (or not) by law before the next code cycle.

Here is the bill:

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/pdf/2015-HIB-5123.pdf

And it's progress so far:

12/8/2015HJ 98 Pg. 2120introduced by Representative Erika Geiss
12/8/2015HJ 98 Pg. 2120read a first time
12/8/2015HJ 98 Pg. 2120referred to Committee on Regulatory Reform
12/9/2015HJ 99 Pg. 2129printed bill filed 12/09/2015
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
In short, if you are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new home in the state of Michigan, you are not afforded the protection of AFCIs. However, if you happen to live in other than a one- and two-family dwelling (R1, R2, R4 Occupancy), you are afforded the protection of AFCIs. This is unfortunate and tends to result in lawsuits against contractors simply following the rules.

So be careful and consult your legal counsel...

Not requiring AFCI's is not the same as not being afforded protection by same. AFCI's haven't been made illegal, just not required. They still can be used.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
In short, if you are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new home in the state of Michigan, you are not afforded the protection of AFCIs. However, if you happen to live in other than a one- and two-family dwelling (R1, R2, R4 Occupancy), you are afforded the protection of AFCIs. This is unfortunate and tends to result in lawsuits against contractors simply following the rules.

So be careful and consult your legal counsel...

AFCIs without GFP offer no protection. So nothing is really lost by having them be optional.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Not requiring AFCI's is not the same as not being afforded protection by same. AFCI's haven't been made illegal, just not required. They still can be used.

Exactly.

Just like nothing prohibits using them for spaces that don't require protection - outdoor receptacle connected to branch circuit that also supplies interior outlets is one example that this might commonly happen.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
AFCI's haven't been made illegal, just not required. They still can be used.

That is exactly my point. They are not going to be required for one- and two-dwellings only, but are required for an apartment or condo dwelling. A smart law firm representing homeowners can make the claim the state failed to protect their clients in the same manner that has been provided to those that live in other dwelling types. There doesn't even need to be a single injury or loss in property for a class-action suit of this nature to be filled. I worked for a rapidly growing city of 10-years. I can't begin to tell you the number of lawsuits that were filed against the City, state, and feds by a group of interested individuals that believed the law didn't apply or protect them equally with others in their community. The builder and contractors are typically named in the lawsuits. A huge amount of time and expense is incurred by those that simply followed the code.

And it doesn't have to be class-action. Let's say a contractor wires a single-family dwelling and an apartment dwelling sometime later this year. He installs AFCIs for the apartment because they are required by code but does not install them in the single-family dwelling because the code doesn't require them. Now lets say an electrical fire occurs within the dwelling two-years from now. Again, a smart law firm will question why AFCI protection wasn't installed? It won't matter that the state doesn't require them, what matters is that the contractor chose not to install them when he knew and installed this type of protection as required for other dwelling types. People that follow the letter of the law are sued all the time and found negligent and responsible for the losses imposed onto a victim.

If they don't work, then why are they required in other dwelling types? What substantiation was used to remove them from a one- and two-family dwelling? I hope it wasn't just cost. Judges and juries just love hearing that. You mean the death of this person or the $250,000 loss happened because you didn't want to incur the extra $300 to install AFCI devices? By the way, the feds consider a life to be worth about $9 million dollars in terms of lawsuits. Yikes...

This type of thing can also happen in states that are behind a code cycle or two. The local AHJ may not be able to require you to comply with the most recent published code, but that won't stop a lawyer from arguing that you should have done so to protect their client, simply because you knew about it.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
A smart law firm representing homeowners can make the claim the state failed to protect their clients in the same manner that has been provided to those that live in other dwelling types.

Or stop it, that is more paid spokesperson scare tactics.

Just as easily a smart lawyer representing the people can make the claim AFCIs where pushed into the code strictly as a money making device for the manufacturers.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Just as easily a smart lawyer representing the people can make the claim AFCIs where pushed into the code strictly as a money making device for the manufacturers.

Which one is more likely? A law firm taking on the Consumer Product Safety Commission or a local electrical contractor?

It's really not a scare tactic. Ever since I made it to the position of Building Official, my perspective on things of this nature changed dramatically. Most BO's operate on a "plan for the worst, hope for the best" mentality. It's just precautionary information for anyone that thinks the code is going to serve as personal protection against lawsuits. It will not...
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
A smart law firm representing homeowners can make the claim the state failed to protect their clients in the same manner that has been provided to those that live in other dwelling types.


But what evidence will said attorney use to say AFCIs actually provide protection?


There doesn't even need to be a single injury or loss in property for a class-action suit of this nature to be filled. I worked for a rapidly growing city of 10-years. I can't begin to tell you the number of lawsuits that were filed against the City, state, and feds by a group of interested individuals that believed the law didn't apply or protect them equally with others in their community. The builder and contractors are typically named in the lawsuits. A huge amount of time and expense is incurred by those that simply followed the code.

Can you give examples or actual cases?


And it doesn't have to be class-action. Let's say a contractor wires a single-family dwelling and an apartment dwelling sometime later this year. He installs AFCIs for the apartment because they are required by code but does not install them in the single-family dwelling because the code doesn't require them. Now lets say an electrical fire occurs within the dwelling two-years from now. Again, a smart law firm will question why AFCI protection wasn't installed? It won't matter that the state doesn't require them, what matters is that the contractor chose not to install them when he knew and installed this type of protection as required for other dwelling types. People that follow the letter of the law are sued all the time and found negligent and responsible for the losses imposed onto a victim.


Well I think first it would have to be proved an arc fault was behind it?

If they don't work, then why are they required in other dwelling types? What substantiation was used to remove them from a one- and two-family dwelling? I hope it wasn't just cost. Judges and juries just love hearing that. You mean the death of this person or the $250,000 loss happened because you didn't want to incur the extra $300 to install AFCI devices? By the way, the feds consider a life to be worth about $9 million dollars in terms of lawsuits. Yikes...

If I remember correctly what actually got them pulled was the lack of supporting evidence from the NFPA. Let me find the docs...


This type of thing can also happen in states that are behind a code cycle or two. The local AHJ may not be able to require you to comply with the most recent published code, but that won't stop a lawyer from arguing that you should have done so to protect their client, simply because you knew about it.


Can you give me actual cases?
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
Or stop it, that is more paid spokesperson scare tactics.

Just as easily a smart lawyer representing the people can make the claim AFCIs where pushed into the code strictly as a money making device for the manufacturers.

I would like to add that Michigan has been 'side stepping' the AFCI requirements one way or another for years and no one has got sued over it.

Also, Michigan has been at least one cycle behind the times for just about ever, and only recently has caught up just a little. We are still on the 2011, and won't be on the 2014 until Feb.

Again, no lawsuits that I know of for that reason, either.

Also, in areas zoned agricultural, there is NO electrical code requirements at all. There never has been. "The farmers have a strong lobby" is what we are told in code upgrade class. Still, no lawsuits about that, either, and you should see some of the stuff I have seen on farms.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I would like to add that Michigan has been 'side stepping' the AFCI requirements one way or another for years and no one has got sued over it.
NE side stepped them until they adopted 2008 - but the fact they decided not to amend 2008 did put adoption of 2008 it on hold by home builders associations lobbying the legislature to not adopt 2008, and they did accomplish holding that off for a while. Normally a new code is introduced in legislation after it comes out (new codes are out in Oct or so, leglisation is not in session until Jan) and often has little resistance and is passed by about March at the latest - and goes in effect 90 days after passed.

2008 wasn't adopted until sometime in 2010 IIRC. I know it wasn't all that long before 2011 was released for sales.

IIRC 2008 also was the year they expanded AFCI to more then just bedrooms and that got the opponents of adopting 2008 fired up even more.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
I would like to add that Michigan has been 'side stepping' the AFCI requirements one way or another for years and no one has got sued over it.

Also, Michigan has been at least one cycle behind the times for just about ever, and only recently has caught up just a little. We are still on the 2011, and won't be on the 2014 until Feb.

Again, no lawsuits that I know of for that reason, either.

Also, in areas zoned agricultural, there is NO electrical code requirements at all. There never has been. "The farmers have a strong lobby" is what we are told in code upgrade class. Still, no lawsuits about that, either, and you should see some of the stuff I have seen on farms.



Wasnt the DHS sited in one of the Michigan docs about AFCIs?

I remember reading the PDF but cant find it.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
That is exactly my point. They are not going to be required for one- and two-dwellings only, but are required for an apartment or condo dwelling. A smart law firm representing homeowners can make the claim the state failed to protect their clients in the same manner that has been provided to those that live in other dwelling types. There doesn't even need to be a single injury or loss in property for a class-action suit of this nature to be filled. I worked for a rapidly growing city of 10-years. I can't begin to tell you the number of lawsuits that were filed against the City, state, and feds by a group of interested individuals that believed the law didn't apply or protect them equally with others in their community. The builder and contractors are typically named in the lawsuits. A huge amount of time and expense is incurred by those that simply followed the code.

And it doesn't have to be class-action. Let's say a contractor wires a single-family dwelling and an apartment dwelling sometime later this year. He installs AFCIs for the apartment because they are required by code but does not install them in the single-family dwelling because the code doesn't require them. Now lets say an electrical fire occurs within the dwelling two-years from now. Again, a smart law firm will question why AFCI protection wasn't installed? It won't matter that the state doesn't require them, what matters is that the contractor chose not to install them when he knew and installed this type of protection as required for other dwelling types. People that follow the letter of the law are sued all the time and found negligent and responsible for the losses imposed onto a victim.

If they don't work, then why are they required in other dwelling types? What substantiation was used to remove them from a one- and two-family dwelling? I hope it wasn't just cost. Judges and juries just love hearing that. You mean the death of this person or the $250,000 loss happened because you didn't want to incur the extra $300 to install AFCI devices? By the way, the feds consider a life to be worth about $9 million dollars in terms of lawsuits. Yikes...

This type of thing can also happen in states that are behind a code cycle or two. The local AHJ may not be able to require you to comply with the most recent published code, but that won't stop a lawyer from arguing that you should have done so to protect their client, simply because you knew about it.

Your words have no weight and meaning at all. You are paid by manufacturers to push an agenda and push products because the sale of those products generates sales and profits for the manufacturers. Please stop with this lie that it's about saving lives. Nothing could be further from the truth when profits are at stake.
 

kenman215

Senior Member
Location
albany, ny
BPH, I ask this not from an argumentative position. Can you actually relay to us case law that shows a victorious lawsuit filed against an EC for doing an install to his state's required NEC cycle, rather then the most recent? I ask because if these cases are common and easy to win, it doesn't seem to make sense for any EC to go off anything other then the most recent code. If this great and very possible liability is out there, I'd like to inform my employers of it. So please forward anything that you might know of or find. Thanks.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
BPH, I ask this not from an argumentative position. Can you actually relay to us case law that shows a victorious lawsuit filed against an EC for doing an install to his state's required NEC cycle, rather then the most recent? I ask because if these cases are common and easy to win, it doesn't seem to make sense for any EC to go off anything other then the most recent code. If this great and very possible liability is out there, I'd like to inform my employers of it. So please forward anything that you might know of or find. Thanks.

Don't hold your breath since what he said is total nonsense. If we can be held liable because we didn't purposely exceed the written and adopted code because it's more stringent somewhere else, then we might as well just get rid of all codes altogether. Than is the definition of tyranny.
 

kenman215

Senior Member
Location
albany, ny
Don't hold your breath since what he said is total nonsense. If we can be held liable because we didn't purposely exceed the written and adopted code because it's more stringent somewhere else, then we might as well just get rid of all codes altogether. Than is the definition of tyranny.
Which is exactly why I asked the question. I don't believe than one should make statements that cannot be supported by factual evidence. If he can't provide evidence to support his claim that these lawsuits happen, then he owes us an apology for trying to use scare tactics just to support a point. Let your augments rest on their merits.

On the other side of the coin, perhaps he's telling the truth, and knows of such case law. If such legal precedent exists, wouldn't you like to know?

So one way or the other, it's fact or fiction. It's up to him to tell us. And we'll all know what a lack of response means...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Which is exactly why I asked the question. I don't believe than one should make statements that cannot be supported by factual evidence. If he can't provide evidence to support his claim that these lawsuits happen, then he owes us an apology for trying to use scare tactics just to support a point. Let your augments rest on their merits.

On the other side of the coin, perhaps he's telling the truth, and knows of such case law. If such legal precedent exists, wouldn't you like to know?

So one way or the other, it's fact or fiction. It's up to him to tell us. And we'll all know what a lack of response means...

:thumbsup:

Filing a lawsuit and winning it are two entirely different matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top