The problem with Federal Pacific may go far beyond Stab-Lock. In fact, if one were to do a little research, it could be discovered in an SEC filing from 1982, that Reliance revealed that Federal Pacific used deceptive and fraudulant means to gain UL listings on many breakers in its line, including molded-case commercial units. Some of these were recalled by Federal in an effort to take them out of service. But, as Federal Pacific products were one of the most popular forms of overcurrent protection at the time, the total number of breakers in service is huge.
I have been advised to be careful with what I post, as I could be the target of a lawsuit. By the way, Federal Pacific, as a business entity, still exists. So, if someone wants to bring a lawsuit, they can go after a company with possibly limited assets.
As to a class action suit against Fed Pac and its parent, there was already a long protracted suit in NJ. Federal Pacific and its parent were found to be in violation of NJ’s Consumer Fraud Act. A settlement was reached and those who qualified and were part of the class received compensation. The class was quite limited. Unfortunately, the records were sealed (for the 2nd time).
I say the 2nd time, as this is the second huge suit involving Federal Pacific since the late 70’s. In fact, its current parent sued the former owners of Federal Pacific for their money back. This was after certain questionable practices were discovered as to testing and certification of certain overcurrent devices. These court records were also sealed.
I personally believe that the total situation is must unfortunnate. So long as the court documents are sealed, much of the truth will never be known. Perhaps if federal Pacific agreed to unseal the records from both cases, they can clear their good name once and for all. I hereby petition them, and their parent, and all involved to help clear the air that these devices are indeed safe and that all means were explored and implemented to correct any defficiencies which were alleged to have existed. It is the only responsible thing to do.
The reasons why the CPSC never made a recommendation are a bit convoluted as well. Kaiser Aluminum successfully battled the CPSC over aluminum wiring in residences, arguing that the wire itself was not a consumer product, and therefore not within the realm of what the CPSC has control over. The CPSC lost that case. It was likely that the same argument would be made with regard to Stab-Lock, with the same results. There is also much more to this portion of the story.
The story is deep and pretty mind-blowing. But, unless and untll thes docs are unsealed, and truth may never be fully known. IMO, evaluation by a licensed electrical contractor is the LEAST one should recommend. Transfer liability right back to the Client. Stay far away from this one.
As to any Wikipedia explanation., stay away from it, as well. Make your answer as simple and as non-technical as possible, so there will be NO misunderstanding on the part of the client. No six-paragraph explanations. Simply put, in your opinion certain products made by this manufacturer, including overcurrent protection devices, have come under scrutiny as to reliability when a fault condition is encountered. As definitive evidence is not readily available, and as no governmental recall of this equipment has been issued, you recommend further evaluation by a licensed professional engineer (electrical) or licensed electrical contractor.
Period. End of report.
