Safe replacement breaker fo Federal Pacific panel?

[Hv&Lv]

I see 15kV load break switches condemned just because they say federal pacific. The amount of fake news on the internet about Federal Pacific amazes me, if the company still existed the legal team would be all over these guys.

I thought these were the same company.
http://www.electro-mechanical.com/services.htm

we still use their equipment and order it new

 

[ramsy]

..I am in the insurance industry, and the concern with the Stab-loks originated from actual fires, a 2011 Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) notice (83-008), and the independent research at http://www.fpe-info.org/Hazardous FPE 171110.pdf. which was updated in 2017..

Thank you for posting.

Pg.12 of report shows both 1 & 2-Pole UL listed UBI (Connecticut Electric) failing at higher rate than original FPE.

Pg. 23 of report, "The findings so far demonstrate that the brand new UBI breakers and used UBI breakers from homes (Sections 3.B and 3.C) have a higher failure rate than the FPE that they are intended to replace."

Is anything available to show FPE or other equipment not recalled is excluded from an Insurance carrier policy?

Since the report doesn't mention insurance, and there is no recall in effect, do you have access to any insurance policy documents?

One of our moderators recently posted a link to NC Department of Insurance interpretation of electrical codes.

This document was remarkable in recognizing GFCI protection for un-grounded outlets, since the 2011 NFPA-70 §406.4(D)(2).
Our Municipal inspectors in California refuse to let GFCI's replace grounding wires, albeit adopted at our state level.
Unfortunately, this insurance interpretation below makes no mention of FPE, or other equipment either.

NC of Department of Insurance Interpretation.pdf
Office of the State Fire Marshal - Engineering Division
1202 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1202
919-647-0001

 

[twm22]

I see 15kV load break switches condemned just because they say federal pacific. The amount of fake news on the internet about Federal Pacific amazes me, if the company still existed the legal team would be all over these guys.

This argument - about the breakers that suffer because of it has an FPE label - doesn't take away from the fact that there is a specific, proven scandal. It is not fake news. I'm not sure why many professionals are defending FPE. Their behavior was unprofessional in this case. Anyone who recommends against any of their other products is wrong,, but it is not only wrong but dangerous to say that the Stabloks in question are fine. They are not and should be replaced. If one disagrees with the data, it is on them to prove otherwise.

 

[twm22]

Thank you for posting.

Pg.12 of report shows both 1 & 2-Pole UL listed UBI (Connecticut Electric) failing at higher rate than original FPE.

Pg. 23 of report, "The findings so far demonstrate that the brand new UBI breakers and used UBI breakers from homes (Sections 3.B and 3.C) have a higher failure rate than the FPE that they are intended to replace."

Is anything available to show FPE or other equipment not recalled is excluded from an Insurance carrier policy?

Since the report doesn't mention insurance, and there is no recall in effect, do you have access to any insurance policy documents?

One of our moderators recently posted a link to NC Department of Insurance interpretation of electrical codes.

This document was remarkable in recognizing GFCI protection for un-grounded outlets, since the 2011 NFPA-70 §406.4(D)(2).
Our Municipal inspectors in California refuse to let GFCI's replace grounding wires, albeit adopted at our state level.
Unfortunately, this insurance interpretation below makes no mention of FPE, or other equipment either.

NC of Department of Insurance Interpretation.pdf
Office of the State Fire Marshal - Engineering Division
1202 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1202
919-647-0001

The exclusion of Stabloks won't be in the policy itself but on a declarations page or other document that, in effect, becomes a legal part of the policy. Insurance companies differ on the types of breakers they'll exclude (FPE, Zinsco, Sylvania, some others, or none, which is the most common case - I would say that more than 90% of property insurance policies in the US have no exclusion for circuit breakers). So it's an individual company's decision. Insurance companies exclude coverages at their peril. If they quote a policy with a breaker exclusion, company B might come along and quote the policy with no exclusions.

 

[ramsy]

The exclusion of Stabloks won't be in the policy itself but on a declarations page or other document that, in effect, becomes a legal part of the policy. Insurance companies differ on the types of breakers they'll exclude (FPE, Zinsco, Sylvania, some others, or none, which is the most common case - I would say that more than 90% of property insurance policies in the US have no exclusion for circuit breakers). So it's an individual company's decision. Insurance companies exclude coverages at their peril. If they quote a policy with a breaker exclusion, company B might come along and quote the policy with no exclusions.

Thank you.

I see "Limits of liability" are included in a Insurance Declarations page.

Can "Limits of liability", or other insurance-policy language declare claims void if violating adopted Fire / Safety codes, such as NFPA-70/70E, or NRTL product standards, Licensing laws, Building permits, or used to deny claims for injury / casualty of helpers missing required Workman's Comp. insurance?

Pg.1 of your report states, "Almost half of the UBI Stab-Lok® type breakers tested to date, including brand new samples, failed to meet the UL489 safety standard performance requirements."

Can the reported UL 489 testing standard failures, of UBI / FPE equipment, void insurance policy, since UL is an adopted NRTL product standard, or "testing laboratory" identified by NFPA-70 §90.7 ?

§90.7 notes point to testing standards listed in "Informative Annex A"
Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures - UL 489

Do property insurance carriers rely on Home Inspector reports to complain about old fuse boxes, or do they prefer Title Company reports, or in-house Insurance inspectors?

 

[Hv&Lv]

Do property insurance carriers rely on Home Inspector reports to complain about old fuse boxes, or do they prefer Title Company reports, or in-house Insurance inspectors?

i seriously hope no one takes a home inspectors word as gospel...

I don’t know how it is in other areas, but around here, most home inspectors are ones that took a couple of classes on home inspection offered by the local community college, they have NO experience, take a simple home inspectors test offered by the state, and then want to inspect homes Like they are all knowing.
The other ones that don’t fit in this category are failed GCs...
I have seen them remove the panel cover and immediately start pointing at a SquareD breaker with two wires on it.
yes, they were on both sides of the screw..

another one recommended replacing all the can lights lights because they weren’t rated for insulation contact. He never looked, just wrote it up because he was the “all powerful and knowing home inspector”

When I removed the bulb to show the homeowner the IC rating, the homeowner wanted to argue they need to be replaced because the home inspector said so...
I told them they need to demand a refund after I had to show them the ratings and what they meant on the internet. I wasn’t crawling in that attic in the summer for it..

Anyone had to inspect a switch because it was “warm”
don't all dimmers get “warm”...

 

[twm22]

Thank you.

I see "Limits of liability" are included in a Insurance Declarations page.

Can "Limits of liability", or other insurance-policy language declare claims void if violating adopted Fire / Safety codes, such as NFPA-70/70E, or NRTL product standards, Licensing laws, Building permits, or used to deny claims for injury / casualty of helpers missing required Workman's Comp. insurance?

Pg.1 of your report states, "Almost half of the UBI Stab-Lok® type breakers tested to date, including brand new samples, failed to meet the UL489 safety standard performance requirements."

Can the reported UL 489 testing standard failures, of UBI / FPE equipment, void insurance policy, since UL is an adopted NRTL product standard, or "testing laboratory" identified by NFPA-70 §90.7 ?

§90.7 notes point to testing standards listed in "Informative Annex A"
Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures - UL 489

Do property insurance carriers rely on Home Inspector reports to complain about old fuse boxes, or do they prefer Title Company reports, or in-house Insurance inspectors?

On your first point, it would be extremely rare for an insurance carrier to have any legal right to deny coverage for anything related to non-adherence to code, unless a requirement for such adherence is included, explicitly, in the policy or its incorporated documents. For smaller policies, such as home/condo-owners and small businesses, my estimate is that 98% of greater of the policies have direct, explicit to code language of any type. I'm thinking primarily in the property realm. The discussion elated to workers comp and other types of insurance are similar, however, in that if the policy doesn't make direct reference to a code, there is very little chance that a claim can be denied.

In your more specific example about the Stab-Lok's: when a insurance policy states explicitly that Stab-lok's are not permitted, what that usually means is that any fire caused by the Stab-Loks is not covered. All other parts of the policy remain the same. For example, if you had a kitchen grease fire, you'd still be covered. But if the insurance company did not exclude the Stab-Loks explicitly, you'll have coverage for fires related to their poor performance, should it occur.

So to summarize, for small business and homeowner policies, coverage is broad and unless stated explicitly, without many exclusions.

Insurance policy complexity grows with the size and sophistication of the business. Most insurance policies written for middle-sized businesses and above have more exclusions and enhancements.

Small real estate transactions rely on home inspectors, but insurance inspections tend to be done by a different type of inspector who has a slightly different focus. Some of these folks will do both, but home inspectors tend to work independently on the realtor's or buyer's/seller's/bank's behalf, while insurance inspectors work on behalf of the insurance carrier (the underwriter).

 

[zog]

I thought these were the same company.
http://www.electro-mechanical.com/services.htm

we still use their equipment and order it new

That was a different division of Federal Pacific they sold off 20 years ago.

 

[zog]

This argument - about the breakers that suffer because of it has an FPE label - doesn't take away from the fact that there is a specific, proven scandal. It is not fake news. I'm not sure why many professionals are defending FPE. Their behavior was unprofessional in this case. Anyone who recommends against any of their other products is wrong,, but it is not only wrong but dangerous to say that the Stabloks in question are fine. They are not and should be replaced. If one disagrees with the data, it is on them to prove otherwise.

Yes they skipped on the UL testing of certain stab lok breakers in 1979 during their bankruptcy and subsequent acquisitions by UV industries and Reliance electric. Has absolutely nothing to do with any other FPE product line or any stab lok breakers made before or after that period of time.

 

[Jraef]

...FPE had filed fraudulent UL reports and that UL, EXXON, and numerous other principals to the suit advised fraudulent activity

THIS by the way is why FPE went out of business, not just because they had some bad breakers. ALL of the breaker mfrs have had bad products get out into the field and have had recalls, even the venerated Square D QO breakers. What took FPE down was that when their failures became evident and widespread, they were found to have falsified UL test reports to try to cover it up. It might be that all of the others were doing that too and FPE were just the first to get caught, but their catastrophic crash and burn served as a warning to all breaker mfrs, so from then on they have all played it straight (so far as we know...).

 

[twm22]

Yes they skipped on the UL testing of certain stab lok breakers in 1979 during their bankruptcy and subsequent acquisitions by UV industries and Reliance electric. Has absolutely nothing to do with any other FPE product line or any stab lok breakers made before or after that period of time.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've seen inspections come back from the field recommending that an FP transformer be replaced. My point relates only to the Stablok in question. I wouldn't even make a big deal of it but at the time, thousands of the defective units were installed throughout the US and we still see a good number.

 

[ramsy]

On your first point, it would be extremely rare for an insurance carrier to have any legal right to deny coverage for anything related to non-adherence to code, unless a requirement for such adherence is included, explicitly, in the policy or its incorporated documents. ..if the policy doesn't make direct reference to a code, there is very little chance that a claim can be denied.

..So to summarize, for small business and homeowner policies, coverage is broad and unless stated explicitly, without many exclusions.

Thank You.

Some contingency attorneys specializing in bad-faith insurance provide another side to this story.
Since internet links are not reliable, some text is shared below.

We see smoke damage and fire claims denied for a wide range of reasons. Insurance companies will sometimes accuse their insureds of starting the fire intentionally. Other denials are based on “protective safeguard” policy forms, which insurance companies use to deny claims if there was no fire alarm or smoke detector. Denial letters cite to vacancy provisions, insurance application answers, and concealment provisions.

Policyholders who have experienced fire losses go through the worst combination of loss to their property and invasive investigation by their insurance company. Insurance companies will ask for financial records and a multitude of other documents. They will demand sworn testimony in the form of an Examination Under Oath. Some insureds are so worn down by the delay and intimidated by the investigation process that they give up their claims.

Bad faith insurance victims are advised to hire separate investigators to document their home was up to code
https://www.tetzellaw.com/insurance-...-after-a-fire/

Fire insurance claims may be denied over errors made on a form or simply from lack of enough documentation that you are able to provide. The insurer, though, does have to offer an explanation for why your claim was denied.

If the reason was suspected arson or some fault of yours that the policy lists in its exclusion provisions, hire an independent investigator to undertake another investigation and prepare a written report if it is at odds with the insurer’s report and reason for denial. Your investigator should document that your home safety or fire alarm systems and smoke detectors were fully functioning and that your home was up to code. Once the report is complete, submit it for the insurer’s review. If it does not change their opinion, your policy will have provisions and instructions for filing an appeal.

This link has been more reliable over the years
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/

 

[ramsy]

In your more specific example about the Stab-Lok's: when a insurance policy states explicitly that Stab-lok's are not permitted, what that usually means is that any fire caused by the Stab-Loks is not covered. All other parts of the policy remain the same. For example, if you had a kitchen grease fire, you'd still be covered. But if the insurance company did not exclude the Stab-Loks explicitly, you'll have coverage for fires related to their poor performance, should it occur..

Thank You.

However, after reading your report my error will be on the side of caution.

Meaning, If FPE is not replaced, any attempts to make it serviceable will exclude UBI's (Connecticut Electric) documented failures of UL 489.

 

[twm22]

Thank You.

Some contingency attorneys specializing in bad-faith insurance provide another side to this story.
Since internet links are not reliable, some text is shared below.



Bad faith insurance victims are advised to hire separate investigators to document their home was up to code
https://www.tetzellaw.com/insurance-...-after-a-fire/



This link has been more reliable over the years
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/

There are a few statements in your post that should be noted. I agree that insurance companies intimidate and badger, but ultimately, in an overwhelming majority of cases, they pay their claims.
1. Denial of a claim based on suspicion of arson is so infrequent that it's not worth mentioning. If a fire marshal doesn't declare arson - claim is paid. If arson is declared but it can't be shown to be the policyholder's arson, the claim is paid.
2. "Protective Safeguard" policies are not "forms", they're location-specific additions to a policy form, and the policyholder acknowledges the "protective safeguard" requirements when they sign their policy. Stabloks are a perfect example. Many insurance policies have a protective safeguard warranty that the policyholder agrees to. If they don't know that they have Stabloks and they sign the policy, they are not covered for a Stablok caused fire. Other "protective safeguards" are for operational sprinkler systerms, aluminum branch wiring, operational fire alarms, no-vacancy clauses. Without the explicit addition of these protective safeguards, any loss from these hazards is covered. Without "protective safeguard" endorsements, many policyholders would not be able to get coverage.
3. Errors in insurance application answers? If it's material to the coverage provided, yes, the claim is denied. Claims denied because of immaterial documentation errors should not be denied and are not. Those claims that are denied in bad faith are rare. In fact, as much as insurance companies are hated for the front page bad faith stories, insurance companies pay billions every year in fraudulent claims and are arguably responsible for 3% of a policy's cost.
4. The invasive investigations? You must give blood to get life insurance. To say that an insurance company can't thoroughly investigate a claim is not an objective business or engineering decision. Policyholders will say they had a brand new roof and want to be paid for it. The investigator goes out and finds a 20-year old roof.
5. Financial records? A business owner gets paid for every month they're out of business. Policyholders will state that their monthly revenue is 2-3-4+ times higher. An remember, the insurance policy is a contract. There is a professional insurance agent running interference for the policyholder. They and the policyholder are agreeing to a thorough claims investigation prior to getting the policy. And the examination under oath? Absolutely required. Without a sworn "proof of loss" statement, there are no consequences for fraudulent claims reporting.

Your advice about hiring a public adjuster (or an attorney) is good advice, but it's important to note that any increase they get you in a settlement is usually offset by their fee. Many public adjusters are great; many are suspect. After hurricanes and hail storms, public adjusters often have roofers and other tradesmen go door-to-door, asking homeowners to "assign benefits" to the roofer. At that point, the claim will last much longer, because insurance companies do not automatically believe public adjusters. But if I had a claims problem, I'd hire a reputable public adjuster.

 

[ramsy]

..Many insurance policies have a protective safeguard warranty that the policyholder agrees to. If they don't know that they have Stabloks and they sign the policy, they are not covered for a Stablok caused fire.

Other "protective safeguards" are for operational sprinkler systems, aluminum branch wiring, operational fire alarms.. ..Without "protective safeguard" endorsements, many policyholders would not be able to get coverage..

Thank You, for the specialized perspective on this topic.

Do policies exist without requirements for Fire Codes (adding missing CO or smoke detectors in bedrooms), or NRTL Standards for replacement fixtures & new equipment, much less without Building Permit & Inspection for renovation, remodel, or alterations?

 

[kwired]

did not read all the replies so sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

If you are just adding a circuit or two or need to replace a breaker or two, today's replacements should be ok to use. They are expensive enough that if you are replacing all of them, even in only a 20 circuit panel, it will cost enough to make one consider replacing the entire panel - though there is usually more than just the cost of panel an breakers to consider.

If they are concerned about the safety of having a FPE panel but don't have the money to spend on a replacement, then they need to be given an estimate and time to find the funds instead of trying to partially upgrade a discontinued product, it will only cost them some more down the road if they ever make additions - no AFCI's available for this panel is reason enough when it comes to future additions.

 

[twm22]

Thank You, for the specialized perspective on this topic.

Do policies exist without requirements for Fire Codes (adding missing CO or smoke detectors in bedrooms), or NRTL Standards for replacement fixtures & new equipment, much less without Building Permit & Inspection for renovation, remodel, or alterations?

Yes, on your first sentence, although they might send an inspector out who will recommend that those issues be addressed, and if not addressed, they'll have the right to cancel. On small market policies, like homeowners and small commercial, they don't inspect too hard - just to make sure there aren't any glaring problems. Generally, they won't look at permits, although they'll check elevator and boiler permits, sprinkler system maintenance tags, commercial kitchen tags

 

[ramsy]

..they might send an inspector out who will recommend that those issues be addressed, and if not addressed, they'll have the right to cancel..

Perhaps, where insurance inspectors are recognized Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) over adopted codes, "Protective safeguard" policy has no need to duplicate those efforts.

Insurance inspectors are defined as AHJ’s directly in the National Electrical Code; NFPA-70 § 90.4, 90.7, & 110.2, adopted at State levels. AHJ’s may inherit NFPA-70, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), NFPA-70E, OSHA, URC, and other codes that welcome insurance litigators as representatives in their code-making panels.

Municipal AHJ’s can revoke occupancy for building permit violations, under UBC § 18.90.110 (.30). No surprise insurance AHJ’s may cancel policy for avoiding inspections. Remodels missing permits are easy enough to check with building departments.

Insurance litigators have established precedent for those local enclaves that exclude building codes, permits with inspection, during construction or renovations. The Mississippi Supreme Court demonstrated its advocacy for building code law by punishing cities that issue permits to negligent builders: Lowe v. Lowndes County Building Inspection Department, 760 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2000).

This case is a model thru-out the country, for the judicial process that describes fire & building-code negligence, what can happen with unqualified persons, and the building departments who permit them.

The standards property insurance demand may differentiate competitors who make that point a bid policy. However, the economy is not driven by developers incentivized by insurance standards. Developers demand indemnity with the municipality issuing permits; neither are party to the cause insurance may find for denying some future claim.

However, code defines property owners with equal right and responsibility as AHJ during construction or alterations. Perhaps having the only skin in the game, owners that hire ignoramuses do so at their own peril, since bearing all losses after those builders are long gone.

 

[tortuga]

1

 

[ramsy]

https://www.homedepot.ca/product/schneider-electric-single-pole-15-amp-stab-lok-arc-fault-circuit-interrupter-breaker/1000112733

Excellent find sir. However, URL is broken. The internet SKU may be more reliable.