Safe replacement breaker fo Federal Pacific panel?

[tortuga]

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

Ahhh the link got messed up.
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/sch...ker/1000112733

Edit more links
PDF version of Schneider Electric's catalogue with part numbers https://download.schneider-electric....&p_Doc_Ref=DE1
Schnieder Electric's UL 489 listing for Stab-loc / federal pioneer from 2006:
https://download.schneider-electric...fication.pdf&p_Doc_Ref=Stab-lok+certification

 

[kwired]

FYI Stab-loc AFCI's are available when needed, here is one that was installed recently. It is not a combination type, just the first generation.
Schnider electric the owner of Square D took over stab-loc / federal pioneer a decade or so ago thru various mergers and the internals of those breakers are the same as a modern Square D QO.
UBI owns the distribution rights in the US, so the modern schneider electric stab-loc breakers are not available thru traditional channels, but are available in Canada:
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/schneider-electric-single-pole-15-amp-stab-lok-arc-fault-circuit-interrupter-breaker/1000112733
The UBI replacements are made with the same 1970's patents, I would trust the Schneider ones more.

What value is there in using non combination type for NEC applications? Too add a single circuit here or there, maybe a little value.

Even when not considering AFCI requirements, FPE replacement breakers get expensive in a hurry if you are just replacing them because you don't trust the originals.

 

[twm22]

FYI Stab-loc AFCI's are available when needed, here is one that was installed recently. It is not a combination type, just the first generation.
Schnider electric the owner of Square D took over stab-loc / federal pioneer a decade or so ago thru various mergers and the internals of those breakers are the same as a modern Square D QO.
UBI owns the distribution rights in the US, so the modern schneider electric stab-loc breakers are not available thru traditional channels, but are available in Canada:
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/schneider-electric-single-pole-15-amp-stab-lok-arc-fault-circuit-interrupter-breaker/1000112733
The UBI replacements are made with the same 1970's patents, I would trust the Schneider ones more.

VERY interesting! Would you happen to know if Schnider markets this as an explicit mitigation and alternative to stablok replacement? I tend to doubt it, as the AFCI would not detect the initial overcurrent condition prior to arcing and sparking. I'll check out the link you sent. Thanks much.

 

[hornetd]

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).

I know that what I am about to share may be seen as a petty quibble but if you look at the way insurance actually works you will see that the distinction can be important. I served 45 years as an active duty firefighter and one of the four semesters of fire protection law I had to take for my Associate of Fire Protection Science degree was entirely on fire insurance. Insurers write insurance policies. Underwriters reinsure the insurers from the consequences of of a catastrophic loss or losses. Underwriting is were the truly serious money in the insurance industry is made and occasionally lost. Obtaining underwriting for a particularly large set of risks is routine in the industry. When one California home burns in a wildfire that is a routine loss against which the insurer is not usually reinsured. To reinsure each individual risk would sharply cut the profitability of the insurer. But when the entire city of Paradise California burned to the ground the underwriters of the various individual insurers had to pay a major portion of the loss because that is what the insurer pays them their underwriting fee to do.

Stop right here if you do not want to read about the history of the term "Underwriting." If you want to know where it came from read on.

During the earliest days of the maritime insurance industry wealthy men would accept a fee from a ships owners; i.e. a premium; to insure the owners against the calamity of a total loss. The insurer bore the risk of weather delays, cargo spoilage, theft by crew and stevedores... All of these involved partial loss of the laded value. A loss of the entire vessel was often beyond the ability of any individual fortune to withstand. It could ruin the wealthy individual who wrote the insurance. Enter Lloyd's of London. Edward Lloyd's coffee shop was a place for the wealthy aristocracy of British Empire to "see and be seen." Insurers often went to Lloyd's to talk business with other wealthy men. A practice gradually evolved of writing the name of a vessel and it's insured value on a wall at Lloyd's as an invitation to participate in the profit of insuring that risk. Any man of sufficient standing in society in terms of both wealth and respect could then write their name under the posted risk with the portion of the risk they were prepared to undertake. Thus by placing their name under the risk; Underwriting it; they were taking up the offer to participate in the often profitable venture of insuring a ships voyage. Lloyd's became a de facto insurance market. That insurance market developed into the one still called Lloyd's of London to this day. When some prominent individual says that they are insured by Lloyd's of London they are engaged in a bit of hyperbole because Lloyd's is not an insurer or an Underwriter; that is a re-insurer; of anything. They are an insurance services conglomerate that brings all of the players to the same "place" even though they now have offices all over the world. The majority of the wealthy individuals or "Names" are long gone from the insurance industry. There are still a few persons of such wealth that they can still participate directly in the Lloyd's market but they are in a tiny minority of participants. They have been largely replaced by syndicates of individuals and underwriting firms who have access to the tremendous sums of capitol that is needed to take on the largest risks.

There you have it. Insurers insure risks. Underwriters insure insurers. Lloyd's provides both with the scale of insurance services that is required to make it all possible.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

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 systems, 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.

As a firefighter I had to summon police several times in order to have people who claimed to be "Public Adjusters" removed from a fire scene. It was of no interest to me or to the local government which I worked for what their business interest was. The moment that they attempted to gain access to a premise of any description were fire suppression or loss reduction operations were ongoing we had them removed. In all of the instances were I called or convinced command to call for police to remove them they came across to me as charlatans. The first thing out of their mouths when their presence inside the operational area was questioned was a threat to sue me personally. All that ever did was to make me determined to do anything I could lawfully due to keep them from ripping off the homeowner. Idle threats are the first recourse of someone who already knows they are in the wrong.

Something most people never think about is what gives firefighters the legal authority to breach your gate, break down your door, break every single window in your home, cut large holes in your roof, and pour, literally, tons of water if necessary all over everything you own. The legal authority to do those rather destructive things to your property is derived from the "Police Power" of the State. The State has no duty to you to protect you from your own misfortune or lack of prudence. The State's Police Power is that power it exercises in protecting you from your neighbors negligence. When firefighters enter a building to suppress an uncontrolled destructive fire; in a legal sense; they are not doing so to save the owners life or property from destruction. They enter the building of origin or any other building on the premise that to do so is the most effective way to prevent the occupants' fire from endangering the rest of the community. If the firefighters can hold the fire to a "room and contents" the owner and occupants certainly benefit but the legal reason that they do so is to have the greatest chance of keeping that fire from getting outside the building of origin to become a threat to the rest of the community. A legal consequence of that principal is that when a destructive fire breaks out the ownership of the building of origin instantly conveys to the governor of the state. Firefighters can take any action within the scope of their duties to prevent the spread of that fire to the homes of others and in doing so are cloaked with the sovereign immunity of the State. If they destroy everything you own but keep the fire confined and the attendant damage limited to that one building then that response is a complete success in a legal sense. To enable firefighters to do that work successfully they gain absolute control over access to the premise at the instant of ignition of the uncontrolled fire. The fire chiefs control of the involved structure comes directly from the governor of the state. No one except the governor or his designee can remove the control of any fire involved premise from the fire chief of the community where the structure is located.

The behavior of the "Public Adjusters" about whom I became concerned was to get inside the operational area and continuously tell the occupant while they are already in a state of shock that the fire department is destroying everything they own and if the occupant does not sign over 10% or more of what they will "force the insurance company to pay" they are going to end up with nothing. In 45 years of active fire suppression work I never engaged in frivolous damage to anyone's property. Naturally I personally resented the things they would say in order to frighten the owner or occupant into signing away a portion of their insurance payout. Yet I think that what I honestly detested even more was their attempts to con distressed fire victims out of the money that their insurer owed them.

The first line of every Emergency Medical Care Protocol in my State reads "Calm and Reassure the Patient." The first action I would take to get them away from these people that I believed were thieves in suits was to get them out of the weather and the tumult of the fire scene operational area. Initially I would move them to an air conditioned support vehicle that was situated near a peace officer. I would immediately ask the police officer to intervene if anyone tried to open any of the vehicles doors other than a uniformed public safety, relief worker, or the victim themselves. I would separate the prey from the hunter with malice of forethought. I would then seek out a neighbor with which the victim had a good relationship and move them to the more comfortable and quiet neighbors home. I would deliberately coach the persons providing shelter against admitting these "Adjusters" to their home by stating fact. "See those people over their one her front porch? They are trying to get your neighbor to sign over a portion of the money the insurance company owes them in exchange for services as their representative to the insurance company." I never had to say anything more. None of the hosts ever admitted one of those "Adjusters" to their home. One had a pair of them arrested for trying to deceive them into believing that they had to let them in to talk to the victim. The charge of attempted criminal trespass by misrepresentation held up in court. They pleaded to that to avoid going to trial on insurance fraud and impersonation of a public official. I'll admit that I was disappointed that they plead out. I was looking forward to testifying against them very much. Since I was wairing a body camera throughout the incident all I was going to do was testify to the origin of the video it recorded. The County Attorney assured me that the video would put them in prison if they went to trial on the more serious charges. In 45 years of service I had to be deposed a couple of times and appear once in a legal proceeding arising out of my service. Each time I had the very reassuring advise of a County Attorney to help me through it as I was functionally involved as a State Agent.

--
Tom Horne

 

[TangentJimT]

I'm a licensed Home Inspector in North Carolina. Per state regulations, I had to pass an extensive course approved by the state before I could sit for their rigorous exam. Annual Continuing Education is a requirement for license renewal. My license is issued by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. I was fortunate in that I was a GC in Virginia for many years, so I was a step ahead of some of the inspectors that I have met since in the field or at CE courses. I also happen to be the kind of person who is interested in being informed beyond the requirements of my license or my trade, which is why I am a member of this forum. I learn a lot from Mike Holt and follow the threads in the forum religiously.

When I perform a home inspection, I have about 3 hours to review every item and the workmanship of every trade. I need knowledge about product specifications, recalls, installation requirements, etc.

Regarding FPE and a few other problematic brands/models/products, I am required to use a comment that I did not write, it was written by the state board. I simply insert it as required. In a few cases, I find myself disagreeing with some of the verbiage, but it's my job - and my license. Here is the comment on FPE:

The electrical system of this home contains a Federal Pacific Electric “Stab-Lok” service panelboard. The reliability and safety of this panelboard is in question due to documented circuit breaker and busbar failures.

Due to possible hazardous conditions, the panelboard enclosure's dead front cover was not removed and the electrical inspection was not completed. Proper identification of latent defects or evidence of hazardous conditions related to this system requires the removal of the circuit breakers and is beyond the scope of the home inspection. A licensed electrical contractor should be consulted for a complete invasive inspection of the electrical panelboard to determine if repair, modification, or replacement is needed to ensure safe and reliable service.

Please note that I'm not saying to replace it, I'm saying they should hire one of you guys - your knowledge and experience in your field is deeper than mine. I'm concerned about electric. plumbing, HVAC, roofs, siding, appliances, stairs, tile work, door & window function and on and on. Your spend every day immersed in one trade.

Imagine my liability if I ignored possible safety concerns. Imagine my agony if a family lost their home to fire. Or their lives.

One advantage I have is the fact that a real estate sale is part of the reason for my being called in. Whether I'm working for the seller who wants to get ahead of the prospective buyers' inspector by doing repairs ahead of time or whether I'm representing the buyers, it's my job to do my utmost to protect my client. Whether before or after a sales contract, all parties have a financial interest in moving the sale forward. This usually leads to some level of repair prior to settlement or some form of monetary compensation at the settlement.

It sounds like the folks in the beginning of this thread are in a tough financial position and they at least believe that they can't "afford" what the licensed electrician is advising. Tough call, but refer back to who controls my license - the Department of Insurance.

 

[kwired]

I'm a licensed Home Inspector in North Carolina. Per state regulations, I had to pass an extensive course approved by the state before I could sit for their rigorous exam. Annual Continuing Education is a requirement for license renewal. My license is issued by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. I was fortunate in that I was a GC in Virginia for many years, so I was a step ahead of some of the inspectors that I have met since in the field or at CE courses. I also happen to be the kind of person who is interested in being informed beyond the requirements of my license or my trade, which is why I am a member of this forum. I learn a lot from Mike Holt and follow the threads in the forum religiously.

When I perform a home inspection, I have about 3 hours to review every item and the workmanship of every trade. I need knowledge about product specifications, recalls, installation requirements, etc.

Regarding FPE and a few other problematic brands/models/products, I am required to use a comment that I did not write, it was written by the state board. I simply insert it as required. In a few cases, I find myself disagreeing with some of the verbiage, but it's my job - and my license. Here is the comment on FPE:

The electrical system of this home contains a Federal Pacific Electric “Stab-Lok” service panelboard. The reliability and safety of this panelboard is in question due to documented circuit breaker and busbar failures.

Due to possible hazardous conditions, the panelboard enclosure's dead front cover was not removed and the electrical inspection was not completed. Proper identification of latent defects or evidence of hazardous conditions related to this system requires the removal of the circuit breakers and is beyond the scope of the home inspection. A licensed electrical contractor should be consulted for a complete invasive inspection of the electrical panelboard to determine if repair, modification, or replacement is needed to ensure safe and reliable service.

Please note that I'm not saying to replace it, I'm saying they should hire one of you guys - your knowledge and experience in your field is deeper than mine. I'm concerned about electric. plumbing, HVAC, roofs, siding, appliances, stairs, tile work, door & window function and on and on. Your spend every day immersed in one trade.

Imagine my liability if I ignored possible safety concerns. Imagine my agony if a family lost their home to fire. Or their lives.

One advantage I have is the fact that a real estate sale is part of the reason for my being called in. Whether I'm working for the seller who wants to get ahead of the prospective buyers' inspector by doing repairs ahead of time or whether I'm representing the buyers, it's my job to do my utmost to protect my client. Whether before or after a sales contract, all parties have a financial interest in moving the sale forward. This usually leads to some level of repair prior to settlement or some form of monetary compensation at the settlement.

It sounds like the folks in the beginning of this thread are in a tough financial position and they at least believe that they can't "afford" what the licensed electrician is advising. Tough call, but refer back to who controls my license - the Department of Insurance.

You are just passing on assessment of the panel, which I as an EC will kind of also do. That client calls me to address what you brought up about it, and the most I will do is report whether there is any external signs of problems, and then state something about there be documented cases of this series of panelboard having catastrophic failures and that I will not make any statement about how safe this particular one is because it will likely cost more to fully investigate the situation than a replacement with newer modern equipment would cost.

 

[brycenesbitt]

Insurance companies are uniquely placed to understand risks.
They at this point know if AFCI's reduce actual fires.... unfortunately insurance companies generally keep their knowledge secret from competitors and the public.