Working without a license

[petersonra]

wow..
it looks like a huge liability issue for a business. I can understand a HO for farmer on his farm, but a business has the public around everywhere.

thanks for the info

Businesses have to make a profit or they will go under. I don't see how there is any extra liability if an internal employee does the work or a contractor does it. but you can bet the cost to have the contractor do it will be a lot more, or at least will be perceived that way.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Businesses have to make a profit or they will go under. I don't see how there is any extra liability if an internal employee does the work or a contractor does it. but you can bet the cost to have the contractor do it will be a lot more, or at least will be perceived that way.

Because the business can hire anyone. the way I read it they could hire untrained staff to do the work if they wanted to. What’s to stop them from hiring handyman joe for two weeks to get the work done then firing him?
for that matter what’s the use of a license at all?

 

[kwired]

Businesses have to make a profit or they will go under. I don't see how there is any extra liability if an internal employee does the work or a contractor does it. but you can bet the cost to have the contractor do it will be a lot more, or at least will be perceived that way.

Because if it is not done to codes/standards and someone is injured or killed because of it, they will be looking at who to blame. As the owner you are better off hiring a licensed contractor should the worst happen - It won't take back an injury or death, but liability is mostly on the contractor unless it has been tampered with since the installation. Owner is still in the liability picture if an employee of the owner does the work, especially if not otherwise deemed qualified to do this work. If law says this person isn't allowed to do this install, good luck winning any lawsuits you are already on the wrong end of things before there is any other evidence.

 

[kwired]

wow..
it looks like a huge liability issue for a business. I can understand a HO for farmer on his farm, but a business has the public around everywhere.

thanks for the info

Farms are different now then they used to be also. Many have employees instead of just family members like it once was.

Employees makes it no different than any other workplace and insurance wants some of the dangers you might have come accustomed to seeing on many farms cleaned up or they are not paying claims or even denying coverage. Not talking just electrical hazards either, no covers/shields on machinery, fall hazards, etc. are all addressed more then they used to be on farms, though still not at same level you see in many industrial places.

 

[petersonra]

Because if it is not done to codes/standards and someone is injured or killed because of it, they will be looking at who to blame. As the owner you are better off hiring a licensed contractor should the worst happen - It won't take back an injury or death, but liability is mostly on the contractor unless it has been tampered with since the installation. Owner is still in the liability picture if an employee of the owner does the work, especially if not otherwise deemed qualified to do this work. If law says this person isn't allowed to do this install, good luck winning any lawsuits you are already on the wrong end of things before there is any other evidence.

The owner is responsible regardless of who does the work. End of story.

If the owner uses an outside contractor, the contractor also incurs liability but it is to the owner. Usually, the liability insurance will also cover the owner, so effectively the contractors insurance also covers the owner for the work done. A smart owner will request a certificate from the contractor's insurance company naming them as an additional insured, but as long as there is insurance it probably already does. The certificate is as much to show there is actual coverage as anything else. .

 

[romex jockey]

The owner is responsible regardless of who does the work. End of story.

If the owner uses an outside contractor, the contractor also incurs liability but it is to the owner. Usually, the liability insurance will also cover the owner, so effectively the contractors insurance also covers the owner for the work done. A smart owner will request a certificate from the contractor's insurance company naming them as an additional insured, but as long as there is insurance it probably already does. The certificate is as much to show there is actual coverage as anything else. .

Buyer beware?

Did i tell you i'm a brain surgeon on the side?

you should check out my winter specials

~RJ~

 

[Hv&Lv]

The owner is responsible regardless of who does the work. End of story.

If the owner uses an outside contractor, the contractor also incurs liability but it is to the owner. Usually, the liability insurance will also cover the owner, so effectively the contractors insurance also covers the owner for the work done. A smart owner will request a certificate from the contractor's insurance company naming them as an additional insured, but as long as there is insurance it probably already does. The certificate is as much to show there is actual coverage as anything else. .

So your saying I can cancel my liability insurance

 

[romex jockey]

Farms are different now then they used to be also. Many have employees instead of just family members like it once was.

Employees makes it no different than any other workplace and insurance wants some of the dangers you might have come accustomed to seeing on many farms cleaned up or they are not paying claims or even denying coverage. Not talking just electrical hazards either, no covers/shields on machinery, fall hazards, etc. are all addressed more then they used to be on farms, though still not at same level you see in many industrial places.

I have a history of trying to explain exactly that ^^^ to many local farm outfits kwired.

As you alluded to, we were once a libertopian state ,still are in some respects, certainly a study in the bureaucratic benchmarks that can assume or ignore public safety.

Granted they are a double edged sword, but we would not enjoy the standard of living we have w/out them

Like i've told my ahj, w/out them, few if any of us would be viable, or even make a decent wage in this trade

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

I have a history of trying to explain exactly that ^^^ to many local farm outfits kwired.

As you alluded to, we were once a libertopian state ,still are in some respects, certainly a study in the bureaucratic benchmarks that can assume or ignore public safety.

Granted they are a double edged sword, but we would not enjoy the standard of living we have w/out them

Like i've told my ahj, w/out them, few if any of us would be viable, or even make a decent wage in this trade

~RJ~

I've found they typically start to make changes when their insurance demands it, and have many times fixed up wiring issues because their insurance wanted it done. Maybe not so much fixing things entirely to code, but missing covers and other hazards that might be obvious to a non electrician are being asked to be taken care of more than they used to be, also seeing shields being added or replaced on moving components of machinery that you typically never saw all that often in the past.

 

[kwired]

The owner is responsible regardless of who does the work. End of story.

If the owner uses an outside contractor, the contractor also incurs liability but it is to the owner. Usually, the liability insurance will also cover the owner, so effectively the contractors insurance also covers the owner for the work done. A smart owner will request a certificate from the contractor's insurance company naming them as an additional insured, but as long as there is insurance it probably already does. The certificate is as much to show there is actual coverage as anything else. .

Yes, owner is first in line when there is a problem. If he hired a contractor he has someone else to blame. If he did it himself or had one of his own employees do it he can't do that so easily.

 

[ggunn]

The owner is responsible regardless of who does the work. End of story.

Responsible, yes, but end of story, no. Contractors have insurance as well, and the more the liability can be shared the less of it there is on any one party.

 

[petersonra]

Responsible, yes, but end of story, no. Contractors have insurance as well, and the more the liability can be shared the less of it there is on any one party.

that is not true in our system. look up joint and several liability.

 

[romex jockey]

I've found they typically start to make changes when their insurance demands it, and have many times fixed up wiring issues because their insurance wanted it done. Maybe not so much fixing things entirely to code, but missing covers and other hazards that might be obvious to a non electrician are being asked to be taken care of more than they used to be, also seeing shields being added or replaced on moving components of machinery that you typically never saw all that often in the past.

As fate would have it, one of our local skibunny inns had a minor incident yesterday , apparently their Eisenhower era oven caught fire during use (they were baking cookies) , which of course now opens the door to the your typical cascade of events ...>>>>.911....FF's....insurance claim....fire marshal........list of woes....permit pulled.....3 generations of 'handyman specials' to contend with....

Now that their biz is confronted with the specter of liability, all those quick fixes are being scrutinized ,along with the usual property owner query 'what is safe?'

My point being someone has to make the call , as well as often someone may take the fall. This is how our system is designed.

Apparently the FF's has a lot of interest in the cookies , which i told the (now agitated) inn owner to keep around until i get there.....

~RJ~

 

[hillbilly1]

A lot of home and business owners are afraid to get permits and have inspections because they think the authorities may discover something that will cost them lots of money.

I was called to do a kitchen in a residential basement and also a laundry room. I pulled a permit because there shouldn't be much to a kitchen and laundry room. When the inspector gets there he knows that someone had finished the basement without a permit. House was only a couple of years old and had recently been sold so he knows that it wasn't the present owner.

It's real nasty what they can make an owner do in such cases. Expose the wiring or get an engineer to sign off on the work (good luck with that one).

I talked them into just letting me change out the receptacles to T/R type and adding arc fault breakers and carbon monoxide detector (there was a bedroom), all required by code.

Other than that, the fact that a permit was pull triggered the installation of hard wired smoke detectors throughout the house as codes had changed since the building date.

Even with your best efforts it can cost quite a bit more to be legal.

There is actually a demand for trades people that will work without permits.

Just quoted a generator install for a commercial customer, they turned the warehouse portion of the building into office space. I know they didn’t permit it because they built an electrical room that was about 2 1/2’ wide. You almost have to walk sideways to get to the panels! If I permit it, they will get busted as soon as the inspector walks in!

 

[Hv&Lv]

A lot of home and business owners are afraid to get permits and have inspections because they think the authorities may discover something that will cost them lots of money.

When the inspector gets there he knows...

It's real nasty what they can make an owner do in such cases. Expose the wiring or get an engineer to sign off on the work (good luck with that one).

Even with your best efforts it can cost quite a bit more to be legal.

There is actually a demand for trades people that will work without permits.

This is the biggest reason I have about quit doing side jobs.

even with joint and several liability, they can still come after me.
the HO isn’t the only one responsible, end of story

 

[Roxy]

A friend of mine, who I have considered to be a real good electrician, who has worked with me for about 10 years (and no longer does) now works for a car dealership, this car dealership wants to install some receptacles outdoors in the lot on some pedestals,, the dealership has a 5000$ estimate from a local electrician and my friend is telling me he can buy all the material for under 1000$, he is wanting to tell the GM he can do this for the company to save them money, and they can just continue to pay him his hourly wage, it would involve running a conduit from an existing panel to the pedestals which would have an enclosure with a couple breakers and receptacles, hes wanting to know if there's any codes against him installing these as hes not a licenced electrician

Check chapter 1 in the Electrical code. It will give you a list of exemptions. In California this work is too extensive to be exempt.

 

[ramsy]

Check chapter 1 in the Electrical code. It will give you a list of exemptions. In California this work is too extensive to be exempt.

NPFA-70 90.2 Scope
90.2(B) Not Covered
Automotive Dealerships would be covered in 90.2(A)

California's B&P 7048 (aka) "unlicensed minor-work exception" is interesting. The project limits of this stature include all material and labor, which is interpreted by State appellate courts to include all trades on the premises during the same project. Unlicensed contractors are in violation if they set foot on the same premises where total value of all work on site may exceed the $500 limit.

The same courts have interpreted violations of the advertising statute B&P 7027.2 to void the minor-work exemption. If any business cards, vehicle graphics, door magnets, or internet ads, omit the term "unlicensed", you can't charge a dime, much less $500, without being subject to disgorgement. That means savvy customers can legally hook you into license violations, and have the courts disgorge you of all payment received.

Unfortunately, license Board (CSLB) stings only check for bids that 1) exceed license limits, 2) violate unlicensed advertising, or 3) use helpers without workman's comp.. Those who volunteer their property for sting operations may get hack-job remodels before the hammer is dropped, but I've never heard of contractors that pass those 3 points being prosecuted for negligent work; such as avoiding building permits, sub-contracting electrical to laborers, installing fire hazards, endangering the public, and voiding property insurances.

 

[romex jockey]

If I permit it, they will get busted as soon as the inspector walks in!

yup, i've not only lost a few jobs that way, i've seen the state show up and throw everyone out the door

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

Check chapter 1 in the Electrical code. It will give you a list of exemptions. In California this work is too extensive to be exempt.

NEC tells us in art 90 what it covers, but that is application wise.

It doesn't say anything at all about licensing, permits, or inspections.