owning a classic wood boiler and home owners insuranse was dumped / scared of smoke lawsuit

[2.beans]

i freind of mine was dumped from his insurance for owning a outside wood boiler / insurance company was worried about a smoken lawsuit . later reinstated with showing of adding tons of chimney length.

 

[henfruit]

i notice when i drive around in the am, you know when every one has loaded there wood stoves they smoke like hell. i dont see the towns putting restrictions on them?

 

[2.beans]

dont know if they can. if they did it would be real hard for people already in tough times.

 

[Duetech]

I'm not surprised. Insurance companies are known for finding ways for jacking our rates even if they have to dump us to do it. There was an old fellow where I grew up (MI) who never had a ticket or accident who got dropped for being too high of a risk because statistics showed people like that who did end up having an accident usually had a big and costly one. The guy should have been given a years free insurance. The insurance company should have been run out of state for doing what they did. I've never bought insurance from them but others I have bought from have given me a bumpy ride from time to time so I'm not convinced one is that much better than the other.

 

[2.beans]

i do know of someone in town that had to change from a classic to a e classic for smoke pollution. i think banks and insurance companys ride the same bus to work.

 

[henfruit]

with there lawyers driving.

 

[henfruit]

wood stove heat is the way of life around this area.and idont think any one should picked on just because they smoke from time to time. the reason i think they pick on wood boilers is because they can see thm and the stacks are so low.

 

[2.beans]

i think they should attack alot worse things first besides owb. like stupid people breeding for starters.

 

[Eric Johnson]

i think they pick on wood boilers is because they can see them and the stacks are so low.

That's a fact. I see that Fulton, NY just instituted what's becoming typical restrictions on OWBs in many states and communities. They have setback minimums, stack height minimums, fuel restrictions (seasoned wood only), and a date range when they can be used (May to November, I think). The guy next door might have a conventional wood-fired furnace or boiler in the basement subject to zero restrictions that produces more smoke than the OWB.

Squeaky wheel in reverse, and all that.

 

[2.beans]

i dont know how they can police this? what color lights will they have on there electric cars? clear ?

 

[derbygreg]

I think this is what you are talking about

http://www.oleantimesherald.com/articles/2008/12/16/news/doc4947c2511bfc4488746970.txt

 

[webbie]

This is the free market, folks. They can raise your insurance if you smoke cigs or do drugs....because the risk is higher.

Personally, I think this is 100% fair. If the manufacturers would build them clean in the first place, this would not happen. So don't misplace the blame - this is what happens when industry does not police themselves....sooner or later, economics does the job for them.

 

[Nofossil]

wood stove heat is the way of life around this area.and idont think any one should picked on just because they smoke from time to time. the reason i think they pick on wood boilers is because they can see thm and the stacks are so low.

I'm getting less and less tolerant as I learn more. The technology for burning wood cleanly is well understood and not significantly more expensive than an OWB. We have WAY too many people around here who burn in such a way that they make the air unbreathable for large areas around them.

While it is possible to make obnoxious smoke in other ways, the vast majority of the serious and chronic offenders are OWBs, perhaps because some dealers promote the use of unseasoned wood and trash burning in them.

If there were no reasonably comparable alternative in the same price range I'd tend to be more sympathetic. As it is, I've dedicated a fair chunk of time and effort to spreading the word about alternatives.

 

[shoeboxlen]

I do not condone the burning of garbage or the unethical use of home heating aparatus. However I also do not condone the government telling me how I can keep my family warm either. Lets see Dont use fossil fuels because they are bad for the environment. Wait dont burn renewable resources because they make smoke and make people uncomfortable..... where does it end? go smoke outside. wait go smoke outside and 50 feet away from the building, wait go to the sidwalk and smoke because we dont want you smoking on our property........ oh no I am on my soap box now. I quit smoking because I was getting too much exercise walking for a butt it was taking all the joy out of doing the unhelthy smoking thing......

 

[rickh1001]

shoeboxlen

What is "government", except a community of individuals coming together? By definition, there are restrictions - the examples are infinite. All I can say is my daughter complains mightily about my wife's smoking, and about being forced to inhale her second hand smoke. My wife complains mightily about the odor coming from the EKO 60 in the basement. I have no one to complain to, except the dog, but he and I are both easy to get along with, and we are both trying to seal the gaskets on the EKO better, and keep the odors to a minimum. This isn't about big government. I think our neighbors have a right not to be forced to inhale our smoke, and we all have the right to burn alternative fuels, although you could carry the argument in both directions and wind up with the absurd. In the end, it always comes down to being reasonable, and employing the best technology available to alleviate our neighbors' complaints. Outdoor wood furnaces are becoming equivalent to blowing smoke in someone else' face, and if alternatives exist, yeah, I don't see why it is someone's inherent "right" to let their smoke go downwind to me, while they are smoke free. I would bet that in most cases, if their upwind neighbors installed a smoker just up from them, they would not be quite so supportive of libertarianism.

 

[daleeper]

This is the free market, folks. They can raise your insurance if you smoke cigs or do drugs....because the risk is higher.

Personally, I think this is 100% fair. If the manufacturers would build them clean in the first place, this would not happen. So don't misplace the blame - this is what happens when industry does not police themselves....sooner or later, economics does the job for them.

Actually, on economics alone, the clean burning systems are struggling because of the high price of the technology. Only by gov. regulations do we have the current selection of clean burning stoves, and a lack of small stove manufacturing that we had in the pre-epa era. I suppose there were a few mfg. that were working on efficient stoves without the epa mandates, but I'm guessing they were few and far between, and have disappeared from the scene by now.

On insurance, the whole idea of insurance is to spread the risk and cost out among a large group of people. If the insurance companies are allowed to single out all "high risk" situations by the insurance industries own definitions, then eventually nobody will have insurance, because the majority will all be high risk in some area, and those left will not be able to afford it.

 

[heaterman]

Doesn't surprise me. Insurance companies by nature are risk averse organizations. It's their business to understand likelihood and possibility of s**t happening.

I feel sorry for the folks involved with this kind of junk in a way but they made a decision, maybe ignorantly, maybe uninformed, maybe purposely, to utilize that type of equipment when there is a lot better product on the market they could have purchased.

The thing that really bugs me is that these wood burners/smoke producers were made in the first place. With all the technology available in the world today, can't these guys do any better than that?

BTW, Martin Lunde has a good essay on extended stack heights on the Garn website. Check it out if you are thinking of extending your stack.

 

[shoeboxlen]

I would think that a OWB would be less of a risk as if there were a chimney fire or boiler issue there is alot less of a chance of it affecting the house thus costing alot less to the insurance co. maybe my logic is flawed. i personally have a eko 25 in my basement beacuse I dont wanna feeze my butt off loading the stove.........

 

[heaterman]

I would think that a OWB would be less of a risk as if there were a chimney fire or boiler issue there is alot less of a chance of it affecting the house thus costing alot less to the insurance co. maybe my logic is flawed. i personally have a eko 25 in my basement beacuse I dont wanna feeze my butt off loading the stove.........

Shhhhhh, they haven't thought of that yet.