# Reasons for Pulling Permits



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

WarnerConstInc. said:


> It's not that hard to do what you are supposed to do, just saying.


It also puts your professionalism on your sleeve. If you're constantly being asked to do work without permits, you need to change your marketing.


----------



## greg24k (May 19, 2007)

BCConstruction said:


> I asked my insurance agent about this because we have a lot of $ worth of stuff in our basement at the moment and i was worried about the the plumbing and electrical work the previous home owner had done because he def didn't pull permits and i didn't have time to pull out and repair.
> she said it's a myth that your not covered and your insurance for your home has nothing to do with pulling permits or not. She said the same myth goes about for people who drink drive and then void their insurance in a accident. She said if you are insured correctly then your covered no matter what and that if your insurance company try a move like that on you then you got what you paid for and would advise on changing insurance companies.


I wouldn't go by what she said...I know for a fact they will not honor the claim if the cause for fire or accident was the negligence of the HO... 

That would be the same like needing a new kitchen and setting fire to that portion of the house to get insurance money to remodel. 
If a fire happens in your basement...the first thing your insurance company will request is the Fire Marshal's report. If that report states negligence or faulty work which by law required a permit, and permit wasn't secured... you will be the first one to experience the Myth turn to reality... Try to collect on that.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

greg24k said:


> I wouldn't go by what she said...I know for a fact they will not honor the claim if the cause for fire or accident was the negligence of the HO...
> 
> That would be the same like needing a new kitchen and setting fire to that portion of the house to get insurance money to remodel.
> If a fire happens in your basement...the first thing your insurance company will request is the Fire Marshal's report. If that report states negligence or faulty work which by law required a permit, and permit wasn't secured... you will be the first one to experience the Myth turn to reality... Try to collect on that.


Only telling you what my agent has told me. Its the reason I asked her because I always thought it was that way also. I'm with allstate and they seem pretty good. 

Also State farm paid out twice in one year on a house we own due to HO negligence. Over $20k of damage each time.


Here we go. Exactly how my policy has it word for word. 

"accidents resulting from your negligence on or off your property (includes damages award to third party, medical bills of third party, and your legal costs – up to policy limit)"


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

Not sure how it works in every case, but in the last two years we have done a few large insurance jobs. One homeowner cut down a large tree on the property and it fell on the house causing at least 25k in damages. Seemed like if there was ever a time for an insurance company to not cover something, that was it. I am constantly amazed by not only what they cover, but what they refuse to cover. On another house, they refused to pay for 4 pieces of counter flashing, even though we were replacing the whole roof. On the same house, the fire dept scratched one awning, and since it couldn't be matched, they replaced all three awnings at a cost of $1800.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Warren said:


> Not sure how it works in every case, but in the last two years we have done a few large insurance jobs. One homeowner cut down a large tree on the property and it fell on the house causing at least 25k in damages. Seemed like if there was ever a time for an insurance company to not cover something, that was it. I am constantly amazed by not only what they cover, but what they refuse to cover. On another house, they refused to pay for 4 pieces of counter flashing, even though we were replacing the whole roof. On the same house, the fire dept scratched one awning, and since it couldn't be matched, they replaced all three awnings at a cost of $1800.


They are anal about what they cover at times. They paid for all but one sheet of sub floor on our rental house because that sheet looked like it was ok! They also wouldn't cover the very small portions of walls that didn't get wet. We are talking about 2 sheets of drywall worth. They had no problem with everything else though.


----------



## Warren (Feb 19, 2005)

On the house the tree fell on, they were paying for replacement of about 70' of redwood fascia. This left about a 10' piece of fascia that wasn't damaged by the tree. Only problem is that it was rotted and no way was I gonna tie a nice new board into that. We also had to peel back some vinyl siding at against a gable end to install step flashing. They expected us to reuse the siding. Was only about one square. We ended up breaking one piece during removal of course and I ended up going to three places to find the matching siding.


----------



## Joe Carola (Jun 15, 2004)

BCConstruction said:


> I asked my insurance agent about this because we have a lot of $ worth of stuff in our basement at the moment and i was worried about the the plumbing and electrical work the previous home owner had done because he def didnt pull permits and i didnt have time to pull out and repair.
> she said it's a myth that your not covered and your insurance for your home has nothing to do with pulling permits or not. She said the same myth goes about for people who drink drive and then void their insurance in a accident. She said if you are insured correctly then your covered no matter what and that if your insurance company try a move like that on you then you got what you paid for and would advise on changing insurance companies.


That's not the same thing as you buying a ho\use and the insurance adjuster quoting your house based upon a non finished basement. You now finish your basement illegally or put an apartment in there and the wiring you dd causes the fire. Your insurance will not cover that.

Your insurance company based your premium upon the way your house was you you bought it.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Joe Carola said:


> That's not the same thing as you buying a ho\use and the insurance adjuster quoting your house based upon a non finished basement. You now finish your basement illegally or put an apartment in there and the wiring you dd causes the fire. Your insurance will not cover that.
> 
> Your insurance company based your premium upon the way your house was you you bought it.


Did you not read my update to my comment. I even spoke to my agent tonight at a thanksgiving party and they confirmed the same thing. No matter if I cause the problem or not I'm covered. Of course upto the amount of damages your insured for. If you add a basement and you don't have enough insurance to cover your extra investment then that's nothing to do with the insurance company. That's your fault for not telling them you need more coverage. 

Basicly your insurance company don't give a crap if you done the work or not. All they are worried about is not paying out more than your insured for. If you choose to add a basement and not increase the amount your covered for then it's your fault. No matter if you caused the fire from bad wiring or not.


----------



## PA woodbutcher (Mar 29, 2007)

Sometimes I just appreciate the extra set of eyes and opinion.

I'm good, but not so good that I don't make mistakes or miss something.:whistling


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

greg24k said:


> I wouldn't go by what she said...I know for a fact they will not honor the claim if the cause for fire or accident was the negligence of the HO...
> 
> That would be the same like needing a new kitchen and setting fire to that portion of the house to get insurance money to remodel


It is not true that insurance will not cover your losses in the case of the claimants negligence. And your example of a newly remodeled kitchen is not applicable. You are siting an example of arson and fraud, which are quite different than negligence.

Claims caused by negligence are so common in the insurance industry, that I would guess that the vast majority of claims are caused by negligence. Ask you self these questions:

If you drive into a ditch in the snow due to driving a "little to fast" for the snowy conditions, is the damage to your car covered? Of course it is. Was the damage caused by your negligence? Of coarse it was.

What percentage of residential fires are caused by: candles, unattended cooking and too many extension cords? Could a reasonable person make the assumption that negligence caused these fires? And are these cases commonly not honored? No they are not.

I think too many "facts" are anecdotal stories


----------



## greg24k (May 19, 2007)

Anti-wingnut said:


> It is not true that insurance will not cover your losses in the case of the claimants negligence. And your example of a newly remodeled kitchen is not applicable. You are siting an example of arson and fraud, which are quite different than negligence.
> 
> Claims caused by negligence are so common in the insurance industry, that I would guess that the vast majority of claims are caused by negligence. Ask you self these questions:
> 
> ...


I wasn't going to get technical here, but if you insist I will explain this to you.

Negligence is unintentional neglect, which what you described in your examples ... in contrast to what I described and why insurance company will not cover you, is because doing work without permits or even working without a license is against the law and God Forbid something should happen, it becomes what the law calls "*intentional tort* or *strict liability tort"*. In most states, strict liability applies to the seller of a product which is sold in a defective condition, or doing something against the law, that is unreasonably dangerous because of the created condition which causes harm or damage to the property...​ 
Therefor, by doing that, you breach the contract with insurance company and they will not cover the damage...in other words, you're screwed.​ 
Like Joe, or everyone else, including myself, who stated the same, we didn't come up with this out of the blue, it is a known facts and HO did not get the coverage from insurance,when fire broke out and caused property damage,because permit was never issued and work wasn't inspected as it should have by Law .​


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

greg24k said:


> I wasn't going to get technical here, but if you insist I will explain this to you.
> 
> Negligence is unintentional neglect, which what you described in your examples ... in contrast to what I described and why insurance company will not cover you, is because doing work without permits or even working without a license is against the law and God Forbid something should happen, it becomes what the law calls "*intentional tort* or *strict liability tort"*. In most states, strict liability applies to the seller of a product which is sold in a defective condition, or doing something against the law, that is unreasonably dangerous because of the created condition which causes harm or damage to the property...​
> Therefor, by doing that, you breach the contract with insurance company and they will not cover the damage...in other words, you're screwed.​
> Like Joe, or everyone else, including myself, who stated the same, we didn't come up with this out of the blue, it is a known facts and HO did not get the coverage from insurance,when fire broke out and caused property damage,because permit was never issued and work wasn't inspected as it should have by Law .​


Call an insurance agent your self. That's exactly what I did. I would trust them over some rumor. Did I mention I have spoken to both our agents from to different companies and they said the same thing! Myth


Also explain why people who drink drive, speed and have broken the law are still fully insured in the accident even after being taken to court. My brother in laws brother in law has been done for drink driving 4 times in 3 years. Last time he was on a lake so he was lucky not to goto prison for a long time. All 4 times he caused damage to his vehicles and other peoples property and was caught all 4 times by the police and put in jail but still the insurance company covered everything. 

His sister also smashed her brand-new $70k Mercedes into the back of a parked 18 wheeler. She got done for reckless driving and speeding as a cop was behind her as it happened. She walk away from it but car was a write off. Insurance company paid out for a brand new car. Infact they paid out over the cars value by over $20k because she had some gap coverage thing. Insurance company asked for all documentation from the accident. They couldn't do nothing to stop the claim even though she broke the law.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

greg24k said:


> I wasn't going to get technical here, but if you insist I will explain this to you.
> 
> Negligence is unintentional neglect, which what you described in your examples ... in contrast to what I described and why insurance company will not cover you, is because doing work without permits or even working without a license is against the law and God Forbid something should happen, it becomes what the law calls "*intentional tort* or *strict liability tort"*. In most states, strict liability applies to the seller of a product which is sold in a defective condition, or doing something against the law, that is unreasonably dangerous because of the created condition which causes harm or damage to the property...​
> Therefor, by doing that, you breach the contract with insurance company and they will not cover the damage...in other words, you're screwed.​
> ...


 I'm saying that this is by and large a myth, and you need to offer us more proof than saying " it is a known fact".

Where are these multitude of cases you cite?


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

And the OP's question was regarding the hypothetical consequences of work done by/for the previous owner.

Of coarse, if a contractor does work far outside his licensed insured trade, and is sued, his liability is personally jeopardized.


----------



## greg24k (May 19, 2007)

It won't be long before you see insurance companies will enforce this policies in your area...as they did around here. It don't take much, before the insurance rates will sky rocket around there, because of people who drink and drive and get nailed 3-4 times and continue on doing so...It will happen, just a matter of time my friends.

Another important factor why this is happening here, is because of labor rates, cost of living, and the quantity of incidents and the amount of money insurance companies shell out.

Here you get a small cape-cod in a decent neighborhood for 500k, down VA or near there you get triple the size for half the cost. Therefor insurance companies shell less amount of dollars for damages, then they do elsewhere... Here they started to crack down on it because of that and that is the only way to cut down the payout costs. 

That is why most Townships adopted inspections, when the houses being sold, or new Tennant's move in, to protect new HO from harm, they make sure that if any additional work was done to the house, everything was done with permit and to code. Don't matter anymore if this was done by a previous HO...We all being in this business and hear this all the time "I didn't do this, they other guy did it". Now you go to sell your house, and you have a basement finished without Town having a record, the seller will get a fine, and what do you think the first words out of his mouth..." When I purchased the house, it was already there" This is OLD around here, don't work anymore and now the attorneys will not close on the house with out such inspections.

Here is a little different scenario as how insurance companies handle claims. Not to long ago, when we had a s^*t load of rain, and homes in some neighborhoods, which never got flooded before, now have 4 feet of water...what do you think, insurance company told them..." you don't have a flood insurance, you not covered" HO say " but this is not a flood zone, and flood insurance wasn't required" and insurance company says, "sorry, we cannot help you" all this is typical, this been happening everywhere, and if you guys didn't come face to face with this yet, you will find out before you know it... I hope not the hard way.

Happy Thanksgiving :thumbsup:


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

greg24k said:


> It won't be long before you see insurance companies will enforce this policies in your area...as they did around here. It don't take much, before the insurance rates will sky rocket around there, because of people who drink and drive and get nailed 3-4 times and continue on doing so...It will happen, just a matter of time my friends.
> 
> Another important factor why this is happening here, is because of labor rates, cost of living, and the quantity of incidents and the amount of money insurance companies shell out.
> 
> ...


I'm sure the restrictions on claims will get more and more strict as time goes on. There's no doubt. The problem is once they start adding more and more of these restrictions then people just won't bother getting insurance. This has already happened with car insurance. 1 in 4 cars are not insured on US roads and it's getting worse as every year passes. 

The UK has some of the most restrictive and expensive insurance rates in the world. I used to pay about $2000 a year on my $10000 car! Lucky for me I was not living in London at the time so my rates were less than half the London rates. My aunt has been driving in England for over 40 years without a license to drive! But she has insurance on her car and has made quite a few claims in them years as they live in a part of London where cars always get stolen and broken into. I think it will be a long time before we start seeing insurance companies make that much effort to make money. They already milk it with current rates. 
:thumbsup:


----------



## Flacan (Aug 28, 2007)

greg24k said:


> Another important factor why this is happening here, is because of labor rates, cost of living, and the quantity of incidents and the amount of money insurance companies shell out.
> 
> Here you get a small cape-cod in a decent neighborhood for 500k, down VA or near there you get triple the size for half the cost. Therefor insurance companies shell less amount of dollars for damages, then they do elsewhere... Here they started to crack down on it because of that and that is the only way to cut down the payout costs.


I realize that you have a good handle on it, but for the other readers I want to point out that, much of the price difference between your area and VA can be attributed to the land value, which does not affect the cost to build. 

You did point out that labor rates, cost of living, etc are higher in your area, but I'm just adding in the part about the land value.


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

Just because 1 insurance agent from 1 company says it is a myth, I am not going to take her word that in every case you would be covered even if you don't pull a permit. This post was to find reasons to encourage homeowners to pull a permit. If I can sell the idea of pulling a permit to a homeowner, I know that I am bidding against other licensed professionals. I am going to continue using this reason as a selling point.


----------



## LB Fisher (Nov 27, 2010)

The truth is.....The current permit process is yet another way to pull money out of people and give it to government. 

I know, they're protecting us!.....So, let's get this straight, you have to pay x amount of dollars for some guy to show up and inspect work. You can debate the quality of the inspection, but that's not the point. The guy/city/county has zero liability associated with the inspection he just did. Kind of sounds like protection money, eh? So the house burns down due to faulty wiring, the house caves in due to incomplete nailing, etc. The guy/city/county isn't going to be sued, the problem will rest with the contractor and homeowner. So ask yourself, why did I pay the guy/city/county to begin with? To make sure the job is done to a minimum code standard? I would contend we're paying a lot of money for such a service in which the entity performing the service has no skin in the game. A private home inspector, retained by the client, could provide the same service at a fraction of the cost to the client and the tax payer. Couple that with a reputable g.c. to do the work and I would contend that you're getting far greater service and assurance at a significantly reduced cost.


----------



## AbsoluteBasements (Oct 7, 2009)

LB Fisher said:


> The truth is.....The current permit process is yet another way to pull money out of people and give it to government.
> 
> I know, they're protecting us!.....So, let's get this straight, you have to pay x amount of dollars for some guy to show up and inspect work. You can debate the quality of the inspection, but that's not the point. The guy/city/county has zero liability associated with the inspection he just did. Kind of sounds like protection money, eh? So the house burns down due to faulty wiring, the house caves in due to incomplete nailing, etc. The guy/city/county isn't going to be sued, the problem will rest with the contractor and homeowner. So ask yourself, why did I pay the guy/city/county to begin with? To make sure the job is done to a minimum code standard? I would contend we're paying a lot of money for such a service in which the entity performing the service has no skin in the game. A private home inspector, retained by the client, could provide the same service at a fraction of the cost to the client and the tax payer. Couple that with a reputable g.c. to do the work and I would contend that you're getting far greater service and assurance at a significantly reduced cost.


I won't disagree with any of that. 
However, I believe the OP was looking for points to use with homeowners that favored getting permits, in order to insure a level bidding field.

I for one, will never recommend agaist pulling a permit, regardless of how I personally view the process.


----------



## KennMacMoragh (Sep 16, 2008)

BamBamm5144 said:


> Really? 15k in permits?!


Could include adding more windows to get the minimum glazing requirements, raising a beam which is too low, demolition and investigation work to see what the previous builder did when he remodeled without a permit, insulating the room next to the basement that gives you access. Among several other code requirements that come up when remodeling a basement, things that the homeowner doesn't even care about.


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

Ken, I hear what you're saying. But here's the flip side - the electrician is required to either correct or report any deficiencies he finds on a job. This ensures the HO is safe. I apply that thinking to the other work also.

Again, I explain this to the HO before I start the job. Generally they understand and appreciate my concerns. One more reason my clients are all referral.


----------



## BamBamm5144 (Jul 12, 2008)

KennMacMoragh said:


> Could include adding more windows to get the minimum glazing requirements, raising a beam which is too low, demolition and investigation work to see what the previous builder did when he remodeled without a permit, insulating the room next to the basement that gives you access. Among several other code requirements that come up when remodeling a basement, things that the homeowner doesn't even care about.


Oh okay. I didn't realize the scope of work would need changing.

I know I would NEVER want to do a job for a customer who would blatantly want me to break the law and not only jeopardize my business but also the well being of my family. Is this one job worth it to the point you would risk losing everything?


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

Don't let Kenn fool you. He's feeding you a bunch of BS and is clearly doing something that is illegal and unprofessional. 

The one thing that he is correct about is that you _will_ have to charge $15K for a $30K basement. 

In my city, it only cost $50 to pull a permit to finish a basement. When we pull a permit, the city checks to see if our insurance is current. They also require licensed subs to do trade specific work. 

Any contractor who does not built to code should not be allowed on this site. So much for a professional forum.


----------



## katoman (Apr 26, 2009)

Hey, don't sugar coat it, tell it like it is.


----------



## Oconomowoc (Oct 13, 2011)

It depends where you live as far as a permit cost. I pulled a permit for a laundry sink, a little kitchen repair work and some stack work on an old house last week-5 hour job and permits were $145. 

In my area we have many houses where permits are easily in the thousands. The impact fee to hook up to a city water main and sewer is $10,000 in some municipalities and is part of the permit process. To finish a basement (just plumbing) $50 wouldn't be enough.

Mike


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

It may cost $10K to tie into a sewer system, but what does that have to do with this thread? I'm not talking about building a new house, you have to pull a permit if you want utilities. 

This thread is a good example of why you should pull permits...

http://www.contractortalk.com/f18/removing-illegally-built-second-floor-home-addition-104917/


----------



## Oconomowoc (Oct 13, 2011)

kcbasements said:


> It may cost $10K to tie into a sewer system, but what does that have to do with this thread? I'm not talking about building a new house, you have to pull a permit if you want utilities.
> 
> This thread is a good example of why you should pull permits...
> 
> http://www.contractortalk.com/f18/removing-illegally-built-second-floor-home-addition-104917/


I'm just saying that permits get expensive. It depends on community.


----------



## KennMacMoragh (Sep 16, 2008)

kcbasements said:


> Don't let Kenn fool you. He's feeding you a bunch of BS and is clearly doing something that is illegal and unprofessional.
> 
> The one thing that he is correct about is that you _will_ have to charge $15K for a $30K basement.
> 
> ...


I haven't done anything illegal dude, I've turned people down asking me to proceed without a permit. I was asking how you explain to someone who doesn't want to pay the additional expense the building official requires when all they want to do is something simple.


----------



## go dart (Dec 6, 2005)

Chase this is a useful thread but come on. You can't find an insurance agent that will say they won't honor a claim because no permit was pulled. What city are you pulling $50.00 permits in? My last basment finish permit in Leawood was $836.00


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

KennMacMoragh said:


> I was asking how you explain to someone who doesn't want to pay the additional expense the building official requires when all they want to do is something simple.


:wallbash: That was what this thread was suppose to be about and I'm not really talking about simple projects either.


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

go dart said:


> What city are you pulling $50.00 permits in? My last basment finish permit in Leawood was $836.00


I do almost all of my work in Overland Park. I have never done any basements in Leawood although I have a bid for one on Saturday. Good to know, I will factor that into my cost. Was it an $83K basement?


----------



## kcbasements (Feb 5, 2010)

go dart said:


> You can't find an insurance agent that will say they won't honor a claim because no permit was pulled.


Actually I can. This is a question I had always been curious about so I asked my agent. It makes sense to me, if an insurance company has an opportunity to hold on to their money then they're going to take it.


----------



## go dart (Dec 6, 2005)

kcbasements said:


> Actually I can. This is a question I had always been curious about so I asked my agent. It makes sense to me, if an insurance company has an opportunity to hold on to their money then they're going to take it.


The Leawood basment was around $62000.00 My last OP basment permit was over $400.00 . 
Ok put your Agent on and if he backs your claim I'll buy you lunch at Zarda's.


----------



## smalpierre (Jan 19, 2011)

robert c1 said:


> Homeowner ended up backing out after the health department insisted he remove an existing 10x12 shed that infringed on his septic reserve.


How far did it have to go? If it wasn't far, I'd have moved it.






I use another pipe to stick in front after it moves a bit, then when the back one is out, move it to the front. Rip a few sheets to 2' and as you roll off, move them up. I overlap the board it's on over the board it's going to roll over so the ones in front don't get pushed forward when the pipe hits it. I also use 2 off road high lift jacks, not a wimpy floor jack.


----------

