Re: Risk
Posted by CM on January 17, 19101 at 08:06:46:
In response to Re: Risk
They don't have to take responsibility because the state licenses plumbers, who are supposed to know what they are doing (the cost of liability insurance is part of the fee charged by a plumber). The installer must make this evaluation on a case-by-case basis. The municipality would only have responsibility if the problem was universal and they failed to require the particular design. Unless every water heater in the town is failing, I still can't see where the installer (or the homeowner, if they are a do-it-yourselfer) can shed the due diligence responsibility to the governing body.

: Connecting to a public water supply is only safe if the risk of thermal expansion is known and judged to be acceptable to the homeowner. If homeowners aren't warned by the local government how to deal with it, they are very likely to incur harm UNNECESSARILY. How can you say the local municipality doesn't have to take responsibility for not warning their customers of a danger they are aware of probably happening!

: : On your claim: The municipality would never take this responsibility, as (1) they don't have to, since this kind of due diligence is always the legal responsibility of the property owner and installer, and (2) it would open the floodgates for similar claims in other subcode areas in addition to plumbing issues.
: : On the relief valve: It is very unlikely that the P/T relief valve was "gunked up", since it is installed at the top of the tank and is not subject to filling with sediment (which is why it is installed where it is). It is not unheard of for one to fail, but it is fairly rare.

:
: : : "The lack of a expansion tank would not cause the failure of the previous tank."

: : : Thanks for responding to my post. I understand that the lack of an expansion tank wouldn't cause the failure of my previous tank unless the pressure relief valve was not working (it could have been gunked up due to well water. Our well water was always gunking up our washing machine cold water line). There was water in the catch pan but water was never observed coming from the relief valve. The water heater REP authorized the replacement of my failed hot water heater under warranty.

: : : "The temperature/pressure relief valve would have relieved the temperature build up before failure occurred." Right, unless the relief valve wasn't working.

: : : "If you replaced the water heater because of a relief valve discharge without checking for a bad tank, then that is your problem."

: : : We had a hot water heater REP check and he authorized that the tank be replaced.

: : : "But in any case, the municipality will not accept responsibility. They even mark blueprints that they approve that the installing contractor will be responsible for any errors they make in approving the plans."

: : : I was hoping that because the plumbing inspector is suppose to interpret regulations and codes to property owners and assist them in meeting established standards that the local government would cough up reimbursement for labor to install my new tank. Also, The thermal expansion could have been eliminated at a cost in money that I was willing to incur if I had know the facts and was given the choice. In other words, the local government (plumbing office) was aware of the possible thermal expansion problem their water customers could occur hooking up to their sealed system but they didn't tell me. You still think I don't have a good claim?

: : : "And if you are like a lot of customers, if someone had told you that you needed an additional item that you had not needed previously, you might have refused believing that they were just trying to increase their income." I would have verified with the plumbing inspection office that a tank was needed.




Replies to this post