On a recent inspection, I got a call from the listing agent saying that there was a concern from the buyer (my client) about the “electrical panel” and they backed out of the deal. It was a 1950’s build and there were few grounding conductors anywhere, two-prong receptacles, and a couple of cloth-insulated conductors added in for good measure (that I knew were all concerns for my client that have two teenage boys and a ton of sensitive electronics). The listing agent asked specifically had the panel been “updated” that led me down the path of researching the history of Challenger panels. Challenger only started business in the 1970’s, so the immediate answer was “Yes,” the panel was an upgrade/replacement for whatever was installed originally in 1958.
However, during my research, I went through the previous forum threads here about the controversy about whether to call out Challenger panels as being problematic to see if there was a conclusion. Seemed like our community has been divided on the subject. Then I asked ChatGPT and here was its response (that you would presume pretty-well summarizes what it finds on the Internet):
The main electrical panel is a Challenger brand, which was commonly installed in homes during the 1980s and early 1990s. Challenger panels have a known history of performance and safety concerns, including reports of breakers failing to trip under overcurrent conditions, potential overheating, and compatibility issues with replacement breakers. Some breakers were manufactured by or associated with Federal Pacific, another brand with a widely documented history of failure.
While not all Challenger panels pose an immediate danger, their documented issues raise concerns about long-term reliability and safety. Due to these concerns and the age of the equipment, further evaluation by a licensed electrician is recommended. Upgrading the panel may be advised as a proactive safety measure.
Seems pretty dire… Has anyone’s opinion changed recently. Any new evidence that HI’s should indeed be calling Challenger panels out as safety concerns?
If I do not observe any faults, I do advise my client that most insurance carriers down here will not write coverage… except for the last chance
State run carrier Citizens of Florida. I also let them know that the insurers here could change their minds back & forth at any time.
This goes in my report
Circuit breaker panel is Challenger brand which some insurance companies consider to be obsolete. Recommend checking with your insurance agent or carrier.
Morning, Brian. Hope to find you well and in good spirits today.
I am very surprised you posted this thread.
Challenger panels. For us old timers, and inspectors with many years under their belts, Challenger service panel are synonyms for…Red-flagging. Why? Potential dangers that include, breaker - OCPD malfunctions, over-heating, fires, out dated safety standards.
On top of that, kick in few ungrounded grounding conductors, two-prong receptacles which typically/normally/usually indicates the lack of/for grounding lighting circuits. Add to that several circuits with cloth-insulated conductors would be a negotiating tool for purchasers still interested.
Brian, why would anyone change their mind unless the past has been wiped clean?
IMO, these are dangerous panels. Red Flag them.
I yellow-flagged the panel, missing-grounds, two-prong receptacles, cloth insulation. Then, the first-time skittish home buyers backed off the deal. So, I just wanted to make absolutely sure I was on solid ground. Btw, I red-flag Zinscos, Pushmatics, Wadsworth and Federal Pacifics. The only red-flag for sure about Challenger has been the single pole GFCI breakers that were recalled (Jeff’s reference). So, absent any GFCI single-pole breakers and no signs of any other over-heating problems, I am weighing whether Challenger is really in the same category as Federal Pacific, for instance. You are voting, Yes, which has some import to it, old timer - Thanks.
The reason for my reply, Brian is I consider you one of us Old Timers.
No hesitation when we write. Talk soft, Write hard!
“Then, the first-time skittish home buyers backed off the deal.” Good for them. I do not consider them skittish. With everything thought-out after your great explanation they backed away from the purchase. Next…
Challenger bus bars can overheat and circuit breakers can fail. The Challenger brand of panelsare no longer manufactured, OBSOLETE, and have a poor reputation within the electrical industry. Challenger panels were commonly installed in the 80’s and 90’s.
Tin plating on the copper prevents corrosion from the rubber insulation. If I am not mistaken, referred to as TCCW.
May not be suitable for todays power demands of modern appliances, potentially leading to safety hazards like overloaded circuits, overheating, and even fire.
The ChatGPT response appears to have originated from an inspectors’ narrative, likely from some sample report. AI has known plagiarism issues.
FL insurance companies have their underwear in a bunch over these panels. I do not call them out just because they are Challenger. Also, I generally separate branch wiring from panel issues unless it is visible inside the panel.
I also do not call them out just because of the name plate. But I do caution the buyer that these panels are obsolete and that some insurers have refused to write a policy for a home with a Challenger panel.
Just to clarify. My understanding is that 100% of the copper is there, meaning it should be fine for load-carrying. The tin was applied to reduce oxidation and also make soldering easier, back in the day when electricians did that. The problems are related to the degradation of the rubber insulation and cloth jackets over time.
Yes the old conductors are copper and for ampacity purposes you would use the copper portion of the ampacity table to determine the maximum current value. The old rubber insulated conductors had a lower ampacity due to their type of insulation but they were still a 60° C conductor same as the rating of modern NM cable. So there is no difference in ampacity (or capacity) if the insulation is not compromised.
Yeah, and they’re super brand specific. I had one fail to call out a T&B panel that used FPE Stab Lok Breakers. Why? Because T&B is not on their panel bad list.
They regularly fail to understand the issues with panels vs. the issues with breakers. There’s risk to messing with an old system that’s working and fine. Worth checking, but replacing does not always result in the intended safety benefit.
Is there any credible evidence of problems with Challenger brand electrical panels? I am interested only in the panels, not the breakers. I am interested in credible evidence such as testing by reputable labs, not anecdotes.
Answer:
You’re asking specifically about Challenger-brand electrical panels, not breakers, and you’re interested in credible, test-based evidence—like lab testing or official safety data—not anecdotal reports. Here’s what the reputable sources show:
Official Testing & Recall History
Recall Scope
The only documented recall concerns were specific GFCI (ground-fault) breakers, not the panels themselves. These were 15 and 20 A breakers recalled in 1988 due to a mechanical defect in their GFCI function, while their normal breaker functions remained unaffected .
No Panel Recall or UL Testing Failures
There is no evidence of lab-based testing—such as by UL or CPSC—that found design flaws in Challenger panels themselves. Challenger panels were not subjected to independent testing showing unsafe operation, nor were they officially recalled based on panel-related failures.
In Technical Cases (like Electrical Panels)
In product liability or building safety cases:
Courts and regulators give far more weight to scientific testing, engineering analysis, or statistical failure rates than to “I saw” or “I heard” statements.
Anecdotes can trigger investigations (e.g., many electricians report failures → regulator orders testing), but they aren’t definitive proof of a defect.
In short:
From a legal standpoint, anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it’s the legal equivalent of seasoning—acceptable in small amounts, but you can’t make the whole meal out of it without something more substantial like testing, expert reports, or documented failure rates.
Let’s walk through a hypothetical court case involving Challenger-brand electrical panels, comparing how anecdotal evidence and lab-tested evidence would be treated.
Case Setup
Plaintiff: Homeowner whose house suffered fire damage allegedly due to a Challenger panel.
Defendant: Manufacturer (or successor company) of Challenger panels.
Claim: Product defect caused the fire.
Defense: Fire was caused by other factors (e.g., faulty wiring, poor installation, overloading circuits).
Anecdotal Evidence in Court
Example: Several electricians testify:
“I’ve worked on many homes with Challenger panels, and I’ve seen scorching and overheated bus bars several times.”
How the Court Treats It:
Admissible: Yes, as lay witness testimony based on firsthand observation.
Limitations:
May be objected to if witness starts speculating beyond their expertise (e.g., stating “the design is defective” without being an expert).
Opposing counsel may show that the witness’s sample size is small or biased, or that other brands show similar wear.
Weight: Considered low to moderate—it shows possible patterns, but not conclusive proof of a design flaw.
Lab-Tested / Expert Evidence
Example: An electrical engineering expert performs UL-style failure tests on multiple Challenger panels and produces a report showing:
Failure to trip under certain overload conditions
Overheating at specific bus-bar connection points
Statistical failure rate significantly higher than other brands
How the Court Treats It:
Admissible: Yes, as expert testimony under Rule 702 (U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence).
Limitations:
Opposing counsel can challenge the testing methodology or whether the test conditions match real-world usage.
Weight: High—scientific testing, especially from a reputable lab, often becomes the backbone of a plaintiff’s case.
How the Verdict Could Play Out
If only anecdotal evidence is presented:
The judge/jury might believe there’s a possibility of a defect, but without scientific or statistical proof, it’s hard to meet the legal standard (“preponderance of the evidence” in civil cases).
If lab testing + expert analysis is presented:
Much stronger chance of proving a design defect and winning damages, because the evidence is objective, repeatable, and quantifiable.
Key takeaway:
In legal settings, anecdotal evidence can open the door, but lab-tested evidence walks the jury through it and locks the verdict in place.
I don’t list anything as being a defect or a deficiency unless I have credible, non-anecdotal, evidence to support my assertions. I will, however, mention that certain equipment is controversial so if they hear anecdotes from others, they will know why I did not cite it in my report as a defect or deficiency. There is no credible, verifiable, evidence of there ever having been any problems with Challenger panels so I report on the observable condition that it was in at the time of the inspection.
I also don’t recommend having it evaluated by an electrician because an electrician is not qualified to assess the probability of future failure.
Key takeaway: