Labeling Grounding Recept on Ungrounded Circuit

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
beanland

beanland

Senior Member
Location
Vancouver, WA
I received a call from a home inspector (not a "real" inspector.) He asked what were the rules regarding installing a 3-prong receptacle in a house full of 2-wire romex. I pointed to 406.3(D)(3). Then I got to thinking (oops!) that there is nothing in the NEC that says the marking that says "No Equipment Ground" or even "GFCI Protected" must be permanent. This guarantees that the owner will remove the little stickies and no future users will ever know that an issue exists. Can anyone cite an NEC reference that says "marked" must be permanent?
 
Here's the reference for every ones reference....

(3) Non?grounding-Type Receptacles Where grounding means does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (D)(3)(a), (D)(3)(b), or (D)(3)(c).
(a) A non?grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another non?grounding-type receptacle(s).
(b) A non?grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a ground-fault circuit interrupter-type of receptacle(s). These receptacles shall be marked ``No Equipment Ground.'' An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter-type receptacle to any outlet supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.

I would think if you could write very small you could write it behind the faceplate on the recept. I don't think it says perm. anywhere. Looking at my dictionary (no NEC Definition) for Mark it does not say anything about perminant.
 
Article 110 addresses this....sort of.

110.21 - The manufacturer's name, trademark, or other descriptive marking by which the organization responsible for the product can be indentified shall be placed on all electrical equipment. Other markings that indicate voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings shall be provided as specified elsewhere in this Code. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

By "withstand", I would infer permanence. Whether "No Equipment Ground" qualifies as a "rating"....that's arguable.
 
beanland said:
Can anyone cite an NEC reference that says "marked" must be permanent?
Click to expand...
The labels are permanent enough unless/until intentionally removed.
spsnyder said:
I don't think it says perm. anywhere. Looking at my dictionary (no NEC Definition) for Mark it does not say anything about perminant.
Click to expand...
That's a ridiculous argument. It doesn't say "shall have been marked at some time in the past" either. :rolleyes:
 
110.21 Marking

110.21 Marking

Thank you for the 110.21 citation. That was what I needed. 406.3 requires it to be marked and 110.21 requires it to be durable. If the environment includes people with fingernails, a stick-on label is not durable and does not meet code. Therefore, a receptacle installed under 406.3 must be marked durably to say "No equipment ground", whatever the AHJ deems durable.
 
Beanland, I passionately disagree. That sounds like the reasoning of a person bent on not allowing the factory labels for some reason.

Two points:

1. How permanent do you want it? Screwed on with a brass tag? Shall we confiscate their screwdriver too?

2. What do these markings mean to the homeowner anyway? Will a label change the outcome of an electrical fault?

IMO, they should be removed from the code. Labels of this variety accomplish little and are likely to be removed (regardless of the labelling method) as soon as the EC and AHJ are absent, IMO.
 
A homeowner is going to do whatever they choose to do when it comes to their own home. One thing that you can do is mention to them that most if not all insurance companies investigate problems and accidents when a claim is filed. If the label is removed then what they are doing is violating a mandate set forth by the NFPA as well as state and local authorities and could nullify any claims against the company and hold the homeowner liable for any injuries that may have occurred. Insurance claim investigaters have but one job and that is to save the insurance company from having to pay out a claim.
 
memyselfandI,
Can you document your statement about insurance companies? For that to be the case it would have to be spelled out in the actual policy and I have reviewed a number of mine and find no such statement. The closest thing is statements that say there is no coverage in the case where the homeowner causes intentional damage.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
memyselfandI,
Can you document your statement about insurance companies? For that to be the case it would have to be spelled out in the actual policy and I have reviewed a number of mine and find no such statement. The closest thing is statements that say there is no coverage in the case where the homeowner causes intentional damage.
Don
Click to expand...

Don I believe you answered your question for me. "The closest thing is statements that say there is no coverage in the case where the homeowner causes intentional damage."

I said this "If the label is removed then what they are doing is violating a mandate set forth by the NFPA as well as state and local authorities and COULD nullify any claims against the company and hold the homeowner liable for any injuries that may have occurred." Not WILL nullify

When there is a claim from an electrical accident, one of the first things the insurance investigator looks at is was it done according to the code. To me by removing the labeling is intentional and thus the homeowner takes on the responsibility of any problems that may come about as a result of his/her actions, and it does violate NFPA(NFPA 70) and the state and local codes because they use the NEC for regulations for enforcement. If the homeowner is left uninformed by not having them put in place by the installer, who is at fault there? The labeling is there for a reason, to inform the owner that there is no ground, but it is GFCI protected. Or at least it should be. The code also does not address speculation, so what the homeowner does is irrelevant. We can only inform them of the hazards involved not look over their shoulder every minute.
 
memyselfandI,
I have never seen a documented case where the insurance company did not pay a claim because there was a code violation even where the violation was the direct cause of the fire. There is no provision in any policy that I have ever read that would permit them to deny such a claim.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
memyselfandI,
I have never seen a documented case where the insurance company did not pay a claim because there was a code violation even where the violation was the direct cause of the fire. There is no provision in any policy that I have ever read that would permit them to deny such a claim.
Don
Click to expand...

We occasionally get insurance companies that request all inspection documents for a particular building. . And because of the Freedom of Information Act they get what they ask for. . If there is a "where the violation was the direct cause of the fire", that's what they're looking for and I don't think they're asking so that they can just go ahead and pay the claim anyway.

We usually aren't told much by the insurance companies but a couple months ago there was a fire in a house. . When I first got there, there was an insurance guy there that asked me to stay out of the one part of the kitchen. . He told me that they had determined that the fire had started in a recessed can light above the island.

Later on we got a request for inspection records for that address. . I don't know how it ended but they didn't get the records for no reason.

David
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
memyselfandI,
I have never seen a documented case where the insurance company did not pay a claim because there was a code violation even where the violation was the direct cause of the fire. There is no provision in any policy that I have ever read that would permit them to deny such a claim.
Don
Click to expand...

I think what the insurance companies are looking for more than anything else is work done without inspection or failed inspections that never had corrections and reinspections. . I'm not saying that a code violation that made it thru a passed inspection isn't an issue, but my conversations with insurance company people lead me to believe they were looking for known violations that weren't corrected or uninspected work.

David
 
I think that most of the time that the insurance company is looking for other pockets to pay the claim...if the violation was created by a contractor, they will go after the contractors insurance to pay the claim. If the violation was by the homeowner, the claim is paid, they may drop him as a customer, but unless they can prove that the owner did intentional damage to the property they will pay. A violation of the electrical or building codes is not intentional damage to the property.
Don
 
Art 100 of the NEC. Qualified person. Here is an illustration from a member of the forum.

By doing the work and not being qualified, a person is intentionally violating the code. As Don said, the insurance companies are looking for another pocket to pay the claim why not a contractor. I will tell the customer that when I do work and the work is to be code compliant, I am going to point out to them why I did what I did and show them in the code where it says it has to be done. After that I can't tell them what to do. C.Y.A.
 
beanland said:
Thank you for the 110.21 citation. That was what I needed. 406.3 requires it to be marked and 110.21 requires it to be durable. If the environment includes people with fingernails, a stick-on label is not durable and does not meet code. Therefore, a receptacle installed under 406.3 must be marked durably to say "No equipment ground", whatever the AHJ deems durable.
Click to expand...

What happens if they change the plate? Or the receptacle? IMO, the stickers meet code just fine. There simply is no way to make it permanent, because the HO who doesn't like the marking, whatever it is, will get around it somehow
 
beanland said:
I received a call from a home inspector (not a "real" inspector.) He asked what were the rules regarding installing a 3-prong receptacle in a house full of 2-wire romex. I pointed to 406.3(D)(3). Then I got to thinking (oops!) that there is nothing in the NEC that says the marking that says "No Equipment Ground" or even "GFCI Protected" must be permanent. This guarantees that the owner will remove the little stickies and no future users will ever know that an issue exists. Can anyone cite an NEC reference that says "marked" must be permanent?
Click to expand...

Ask him why you need to train him.He just put on the badge,either he is qualifed or not.Most likely he is not or you never would got the call.Its not a simple fast question.Many things come into play as how to bring it to code without $$$$$$$$$$$$.This is why he gets paid.Eether he sites code numbers or tell him to put his boss on the phone.Far too many know almost nothing and are sticking there mis beliefs on the seller to pay.Bob will boot this i am sure.
 
Jim, The inspector (what ever type) asked some one a question and this person answered, what's your problem with that?

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top