Ok so after my insurance company says its ok then i should show them the instruction manual and say the installer/hired professional did it wrong. ?
another newbe another zero clearance question
- Thread starter mosquito
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
If you dont want them to deny a claim later down the road then yes you should make them aware of any possible issues. Because if there ever is a claim they will find that passage and it will probably cause problems for someone. But again you will be covered by the installers liability insurance in this case. So what would happen if there ever was an issue (which there very well may never be one) would be that your insurance would investigate and find that it did not meet code.they would probably then pay it and go after the installers insurance to cover any damages. It is totally up to you but i have to answer this question to the best of my knowledge and training. I cant tell you or anyone else they cant do it i just make people aware that there are some potentially serious liability issues involved with it. And unless the zc unit is very thoroughly inspected there could be a potential safety issue.
Heard back from both. They both affirmed this is a question of liability not safety. HPBA wishes the testing labs would step up to the plate and finally resolve this issue with testing protocols.
Of course with any installation, masonry or ZC, a thorough inspection should take place first to spot any issues.
I agree with this totally. I am fine with it if both units ok it or if there was a standard to test to. But at this point there are very few zc manufacturers that ok it and there is no standard to test to. So to me it is not worth the risk.
Ok first off i want to thank everyone for the help and opinions. Having said that it seems like a no brainer . The original installer has given me a price to put a ul listed fireplace insert for factory made fireplace inside the unit he installed 10 years ago that has never had wood burned in it . He is only going to remove the screens and the damper. Then install a chimney liner. My insurance company has no problem with this. My insurance company will cover any accidents that could ever happen. Then if anything is found wrong with the install they would go after the professional that i hire to do the work. There is overwhelming evidence that it is not a safety concerns just a liability issue between installer and the factory that produces these products. So i feel that to rip out my existing zc box , put in a free standing unit or adding another unit or arguing with my insurance company makes no sense .
Last edited:
Bholler i understand as a pro your not comfortable with the liability and have no problem with that . Im sure there's more of you with the same feelings. As for me with no personal liability and now no safety concerns. I like the idea of a clean safe installation with no safety concerns. Remember im trying to save money for me and my family so why would i spend more money for the same end result.
No there is no evidence of that at all. There is no testing of it and there fore no evidence for or against any safety issues. And absolutely not overwhelming evidence that it is safe.
They have no problem with it because they dont have all of the info. which i am positive they will get if there is a claim. If you are comfortable with this risk go for it but there absolutely is a risk
Are you saying the stove companies don't test their own product in a ZC before stating this in their manual?
Grisu
Minister of Fire
And I may add not just in their manual but also on the UL-tag which to my knowledge has to be approved by UL before it can be put on the units.
I have had several "pros" say it was safe and they do it all the time. Even you said on page 1 " that it is not necessarily a safety issue but a liability.
Last edited:
In some of them yes I am sure they do. But was this one tested in this unit? I doubt it
Yes not necessarily a safety issue. I never said there was not safety concerns. Just that the main concern for me is liability. There are potential safety risks. But they are untested.
If they are willing to risk their business on an untested and unapproved system more power to them. I am curious who they are certified through if anyone? Because if they are certified by any of the organizations i know they are violating their professional code of ethics as well.
I know that there are some that don't see any issue with this. And it is up to each homeowner to make their own decision on it. But it bothers me when people act like there is no concern at all. When if there was not an issue why would all of the profession organizations and most reputable pros be against it?
Lawyers
PS: HPBA was not against it and wished the testing labs would help resolve this issue. CSIA wants to avoid the issue due to liability concerns.
PPS:
Last edited:
Yes and who is it that determines if a claim is paid? I find it amusing that everyone dismisses this because it is just a liability issue. That is still a pretty serious issue if you ask me
If an insurance company's lawyer doesn't want to see a payout there are myriad ways they can make that happen, even if there is no fault. It really comes down to the insurance adjuster. Their zeal to avoid payment is being seriously overstated. This varies with the company, but if the homeowner has had the work professionally done then the homeowner has done diligence, good companies will honor that. I won't go further than that. I'm not in the insurance industry and it could be that a report of a ZC insert failure is an extreme rarity for them. There's no point in speculating on their decisions for a hypothetical case.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
