Damage claim need help to document

Status
Not open for further replies.
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
A contractor was cutting off 4" PVC stubbed out and cut into the adjacent buried 4" PVC with 600 MCM feeders, about 4 months later it blew out, and $15,000 to cut, pull new, set j-box as emergency repair.

What are the NEC violations that occured when the wire was nicked?
This is one:
310.2 Conductors.
(A) Insulated. Conductors shall be insulated.

Thanks I have to have our rebuttal in tuesday and I am running out of ttime. They don't deny cutting the conduit...but say it should not of blown up (480V three phase)
 
have you considered 110.7?
'
110.7 Wiring Integrity.
Completed wiring installations shall be free from short circuits, ground faults, or any connections to ground other than as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.

and to add more:

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.

(B) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections. Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues. There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
 
Last edited:
I have awsome photos. I don't know where the damaged wire went, or conduit went, but its lost any chain of evidence.
At the time it was obvious what happened, it had to be repaired right away.
 
Other than mentioned above The only section of the NEC that might apply is quality of work (I feel the NEC is the least of worries in this).


At a minimum he should have completed the following.

1. Were the conductors tested after cutting?

Not testing the conductors puts the EC in the realm of being negligent. He did not verify the conditions after he directly was responsible for possible damaging conductors.

2. Was the cut conduit uncovered and visually inspected.

Not visually inspecting the conduit s puts the EC in the realm of being negligent. He did not verify the conditions after he directly was responsible for possible damaging the conduit.

I would argue that he did nothing to verify the conditions of the conduit and conductors.

IF INDEED HE DID NOT DO TESTING AND INSPECTING.

If he says he did these where are the pictures, where are the test reports was the test equipment calibrated was the test performed per industry standards. Was the tester qualified.


Who made the repairs? if the EC that damaged the conduit did the repairs and the evidence is gone I would include this as additionally capability in the having responsibility in the damage, hiding evidence.
 
Last edited:
And this information can't be used in a court as I am not an expert witness. Its merely to say, these are the code violations that you caused when you cut it. I work for the owner of the damaged conduit
 
110.7 Wiring Integrity.
Completed wiring installations shall be free from short circuits, ground faults, or any connections to ground other than as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.


***110.12(B) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections.
[last sentence]
There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.****


Add to this the definition of Equipment from Article 100
 
I think I would take a short section of 4" PVC conduit and place 4 - 600 MCM cables in the conduit and then take pictures of how easy it would be to nick the wires if the conduit is cut 1/3 of the way through. A video would be even better.
 
I doubt the NEC specifically prohibits damaging existing installations, but, I also can't imagine a defense that claims there's no such prohibition.

Once damaged, the insulation was no longer within it's specs, and ungrounded conductors must be insulated except where they're terninated.


Why not 310.2?
 
The NEC is an installation code...it does not apply to damage caused after the original installation. It is just a liability issue, not a code issue. You don't need any code sections, you just need to be able to prove that the failure was in fact caused by the damage.
 
tom baker said:
A contractor was cutting off 4" PVC stubbed out and cut into the adjacent buried 4" PVC with 600 MCM feeders, about 4 months later it blew out, and $15,000 to cut, pull new, set j-box as emergency repair.

What are the NEC violations that occured when the wire was nicked?
This is one:
310.2 Conductors.
(A) Insulated. Conductors shall be insulated.

Thanks I have to have our rebuttal in tuesday and I am running out of ttime. They don't deny cutting the conduit...but say it should not of blown up (480V three phase)
Click to expand...

I would go with the wet location angle that when the conduit was compromized the cables were damaged and when water/condensation entered the pipes it blew up. Or the cables which have mysteriously dissapeared were damaged to the point of not being able to carry the load. If you hold a masters license you can be called as an expert witness. It has happened to me where I was called as an expert witness under protest where the judge forced me to testify.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
...It is just a liability issue...
...you just need to be able to prove that the failure was in fact caused by the damage.
Click to expand...
I am of the understanding irrefutable proof is not a necessity in civil suits such as one of culpable negligence/liability. Reasonable suspicion and likelihood may be enough.
 
Tom I have been involved in similar cases, take a look at what I posted. And you are an expert witness if you want to be. I personally hate going to court or giving depositions. Lawyers will try and attack you personally in a deposition and try to through you off guard.

I primarily take the common sense approach and stress that testing NEEDS to be completed after any incidence like this and to not test is negligent. When the EC says they know nothing about testing they are challenged on not being qualified to make repairs and should have hired a company that is qualified.
 
tom baker said:
They don't deny cutting the conduit...but say it should not of blown up (480V three phase)
Click to expand...


I don't understand their reasoning on this. Even if they megged the cable after cutting the conduit it wouldn't prove anything. I have seen a pin hole ( manufacturing defect ) cause a serious problem with a cable at only 480 V. It didn't show up until there was moisture in the conduit.

It would seem to me that if they admit to cutting the conduit that the burden of proof that it was properly corrected should fall on them. The only way to know for sure would be a visual inspection of the cable in question ( they know where to look ) and if found either replaced or repaired. Before it blows it can even be hard to see a small nick in a cable. I think the manufacturers recommend that a suspect cable be submersed in water and megged.

I think I would check to see if they used any methods recommended by the manufacturer to insure the integrity of the insulation once it was reasonable to assume that damage may have occured.
 
Smart $ said:
I am of the understanding irrefutable proof is not a necessity in civil suits such as one of culpable negligence/liability. Reasonable suspicion and likelihood may be enough.
Click to expand...
I probably should have said provide enough information to convince a jury or a judge as the case may be. You are correct that the standards of proof in a civil case are not near as high as in a criminal case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top