smoke detector requirements vs LV

[joecalvin]

Guys, we have been getting more requests from builders to leave out the smoke detectors so they can have LV smoke detectors installed to communicate with smart home technology. Does eliminating supplying smoke detectors/installation from our scope of work protect us from liabilities? They would have to have the LV contractor install and wire them. Or should we insist on installing smoke detectors per code and tell them to modify the house after final inspection?

Any advise on this?

Thanks
Joe

 

[ron]

Most adopted residential building codes allow for a fire alarm system to be used in lieu of smoke alarms that you may be used to. As long as they are compliant with the code, there shouldn't be a problem.
The IRC reference would be R314.7.

 

[dkidd]

Most adopted residential building codes allow for a fire alarm system to be used in lieu of smoke alarms that you may be used to. As long as they are compliant with the code, there shouldn't be a problem.
The IRC reference would be R314.7.

The fire alarm system is required to have smoke or combination alarms. The primary power is basically required to be building AC.

 

[joecalvin]

Guys, thank you for the feed back. What I was looking for were the liability responsibilities for smoke detectors. I found this article in an NFPA article:

What is code for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors?
§ 42.060 – Carbon Monoxide Detectors. ... Requires that a person who constructs a single-family dwelling shall install one or more smoke detectors, and one or more carbon monoxide detectors in the vicinity of any bedrooms in the dwelling in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

So, my take on this is that if we exclude that scope of work from our proposal then the responsibility for the smoke detectors falls on the builder to meet code.

Let me know if I am mistaken in my assessment of the article.

Thanks
Joe

 

[gadfly56]

Guys, thank you for the feed back. What I was looking for were the liability responsibilities for smoke detectors. I found this article in an NFPA article:

What is code for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors?
§ 42.060 – Carbon Monoxide Detectors. ... Requires that a person who constructs a single-family dwelling shall install one or more smoke detectors, and one or more carbon monoxide detectors in the vicinity of any bedrooms in the dwelling in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

So, my take on this is that if we exclude that scope of work from our proposal then the responsibility for the smoke detectors falls on the builder to meet code.

Let me know if I am mistaken in my assessment of the article.

Thanks
Joe

I think your assessment is correct. If you don't put it in, someone has to.

Let's also be clear what is required and how you can comply. If you don't put in 120VAC smoke/CO alarms with battery backup you can put in a system with LV smoke/CO detectors and notification appliances. However, the homeowner is required to get a test and inspection contract with a fire alarm company and have the system inspected once a year. Also, for new construction, I don't believe you can use wireless devices such as Nest and the like, because the devices are not supervised, and there is a requirement that primary power come from the home electrical panel.

 

[kwired]

I think your assessment is correct. If you don't put it in, someone has to.

Let's also be clear what is required and how you can comply. If you don't put in 120VAC smoke/CO alarms with battery backup you can put in a system with LV smoke/CO detectors and notification appliances. However, the homeowner is required to get a test and inspection contract with a fire alarm company and have the system inspected once a year. Also, for new construction, I don't believe you can use wireless devices such as Nest and the like, because the devices are not supervised, and there is a requirement that primary power come from the home electrical panel.

Exacty what I was going to ask about, are these "smart home" type systems NFPA compliant "fire alarm systems"? I'm guessing no for nearly all if not all of them.

 

[gadfly56]

Exacty what I was going to ask about, are these "smart home" type systems NFPA compliant "fire alarm systems"? I'm guessing no for nearly all if not all of them.

I should have made it clear that you can't use these devices in lieu of hard-wired in new construction. If you have the required hard-wired devices, you can always add the wireless devices if you want. Rules for existing construction prior to about 1975 or so are different, and that date varies widely by state.

 

[curt swartz]

Nest has both hardwired with battery backup and battery only versions. They both communicate over wireless. The IBC allows wireless interconnection.

 

[gadfly56]

Nest has both hardwired with battery backup and battery only versions. They both communicate over wireless. The IBC allows wireless interconnection.

The IBC doesn't apply to one- and two-family homes. That's what the IRC (International Residential Code) is for. Section R314.6 requires that the power be supplied by a commercial service if one is present for the premises. The exception is if a smoke or combination smoke/CO alarm needs to be installed as a result of alterations to the structure; then you can use a battery unit. The interconnection between alarms is allowed to be wireless for listed units.

 

[garbo]

Guys, we have been getting more requests from builders to leave out the smoke detectors so they can have LV smoke detectors installed to communicate with smart home technology. Does eliminating supplying smoke detectors/installation from our scope of work protect us from liabilities? They would have to have the LV contractor install and wire them. Or should we insist on installing smoke detectors per code and tell them to modify the house after final inspection?

Any advise on this?

Thanks
Joe

At an IAEI continuing ed class a few years ago we were told that the $500K insurance that the small electrical contractor carries in our area does not include any work on fire or smoke alarms systems so I would no longer touch them. I was often asked to wire in ground swimming pools but always turned them down due to possibly liability concerns. I never had a claim on my electrical insurance and want to keep it at that. Was on Federal jury duty twice and at least ten city jury duty cases and can not believe outrages amounts of money awarded.

 

[gadfly56]

At an IAEI continuing ed class a few years ago we were told that the $500K insurance that the small electrical contractor carries in our area does not include any work on fire or smoke alarms systems so I would no longer touch them. I was often asked to wire in ground swimming pools but always turned them down due to possibly liability concerns. I never had a claim on my electrical insurance and want to keep it at that. Was on Federal jury duty twice and at least ten city jury duty cases and can not believe outrages amounts of money awarded.

That's interesting. Here in NJ, holding an EC license is taken as de facto proof that you are competent to work on fire alarms. I've never heard of anyone complaining about such an exclusion in our area. Maybe some of the "locals" for NJ can chime in here.

 

[kwired]

That's interesting. Here in NJ, holding an EC license is taken as de facto proof that you are competent to work on fire alarms. I've never heard of anyone complaining about such an exclusion in our area. Maybe some of the "locals" for NJ can chime in here.

Sort of same here. I can wire fire alarm systems with my EC license. Though I seldom even do minor things with such systems. Just don't keep up with associated codes or products as they change over time.

A person with only a fire alarm installer license however can not run power and lighting circuits. Can not even run the AC supply to the fire alarm system they are installing, or any power/lighting load conductors that interface with fire alarm components. Can do pretty much everything else associated with the fire alarm though.

That said, if you only have $500K liability you likely are not working on many projects that even have these fire alarm systems though. You probably do install interconnected smoke alarms in dwellings pretty frequently though.

 

[gadfly56]

Sort of same here. I can wire fire alarm systems with my EC license. Though I seldom even do minor things with such systems. Just don't keep up with associated codes or products as they change over time.

A person with only a fire alarm installer license however can not run power and lighting circuits. Can not even run the AC supply to the fire alarm system they are installing, or any power/lighting load conductors that interface with fire alarm components. Can do pretty much everything else associated with the fire alarm though.

That said, if you only have $500K liability you likely are not working on many projects that even have these fire alarm systems though. You probably do install interconnected smoke alarms in dwellings pretty frequently though.

IIRC, my company carries $5,000,000 in coverage. However, if we wind up working on a really large project, we stipulate that our liability is limited to our coverage or actual damages, whichever is less.

 

[kwired]

IIRC, my company carries $5,000,000 in coverage. However, if we wind up working on a really large project, we stipulate that our liability is limited to our coverage or actual damages, whichever is less.

Shouldn't have to mention "or actual damages" IMO, but I guess people like to get whatever they can in a lawsuit any more. One more tool for the court to use if needed I guess, especially if on a document they signed.

At same time that won't necessarily stop them from attempting to sue for higher amounts, that just where the insurance will stop paying any further amounts.

If you ever get to use whatever your maximum amount is, there may be a chance your insurance will drop you or at least raise your rates, maybe pretty severely. You can bet you get some intense auditing at very least if they are to continue coverage.

 

[gadfly56]

Shouldn't have to mention "or actual damages" IMO, but I guess people like to get whatever they can in a lawsuit any more. One more tool for the court to use if needed I guess, especially if on a document they signed.

At same time that won't necessarily stop them from attempting to sue for higher amounts, that just where the insurance will stop paying any further amounts.

If you ever get to use whatever your maximum amount is, there may be a chance your insurance will drop you or at least raise your rates, maybe pretty severely. You can bet you get some intense auditing at very least if they are to continue coverage.

I think our standard terms and conditions spell it out so if you sign our proposal, you're bound by that limitation. Where a more formal contract is requested by the client, we get that clause in or don't do the job. We also usually try to back out any subrogation clauses for good measure.