CSST a defective product?

[jxofaltrds]

I just ran across this article.
http://www.subrogationrecoverylawbl...csst-is-a-defective-product-in-landmark-case/

My question is if it is now truely defective should we, as electricians, refuse to have anything to do with its installation? Bonding it per the manufacture' specs.

 

[480sparky]

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say if you refuse to bond it, you'll get hauled into court for damages along with everyone else.

 

[Cavie]

An intresting concept should there be a problem. Bonding is a manufactures instalation insturction. The electrican is not installing the pipe. The plumber or gas company is. Why is it up to the electrician to bond it. CAUSE, if he doesn't he doesn't pass inspection. Does he charge extra?? Who does he charge? The builder, the gas company, the plumber? A good lawyer could make a good living on this merry-go-round.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

We have beat this issue til we were blue in the face. The product is defective, IMO, that is why we have to bond it. The NEC states egc is good enough but the mfg says #6 or use 250.66, in some cases.

I will tell you this--- lawyers will sue everyone involved whether you connect the bond or not. So I bond it. I even bond the omegaflex counterstrike - the black flex-- that supposedly does not req. a bond.

I saw lawyers sue the manufacturer of the can for a panel-- sheet metal workers-- when the panel blew up.

 

[hurk27]

Mike thank you for that link, and I found another page that has allot more including a response from NFPA:

http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.com/articles/products-liability/csst-1/

This will be forwarded to our state ASAP, I hope it gets band, I have been saying from the beginning this piping method was a disaster waiting to happen and the bonding requirements of the manufacture was inadequate, even installing a bond from end to end will not guarantee safety of a direct lightning strike.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Mike thank you for that link, and I found another page that has allot more including a response from NFPA:

http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.com/articles/products-liability/csst-1/

This will be forwarded to our state ASAP, I hope it gets band, I have been saying from the beginning this piping method was a disaster waiting to happen and the bonding requirements of the manufacture was inadequate, even installing a bond from end to end will not guarantee safety of a direct lightning strike.

Good idea however this is not new. CSST have paid off over a 100 million dollars from a lawsuit back in 2008 or 2009, I believe.

For a period of time they would pay for the upfit of any existing flex piping that was not bonded.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike thank you for that link, and I found another page that has allot more including a response from NFPA:

http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.com/articles/products-liability/csst-1/

This will be forwarded to our state ASAP, I hope it gets band, I have been saying from the beginning this piping method was a disaster waiting to happen and the bonding requirements of the manufacture was inadequate, even installing a bond from end to end will not guarantee safety of a direct lightning strike.

Thanxs for the NFPA info.