High velocity wind zone

Just a question for those of you in the high velocity wind zone. When checking doors and windows, once you have verified that they have a permit, what do you do when you find that the exit doors have been installed to open inward?

Do you mark A under opeining protection because you have a permit? or

Do you mark X because they are not propely installed?

My spider senses are twitching… :wink:

And what makes you think they don’t make inswing doors with a large missile NOA?

They do, but these were not them. I just wanted to know how everyone would write this.

You ain’t just whistling Dixie.

For example:

Apparently they do…

I sure am glad I don’t do inspections down there. What a circus.
FWIW, the form asks if the products are listed as debris protection devices or approved. It does not however ask if they are installed correctly. That would be question 1. :wink:

The bigger issues is with hurricanes and south FL codes in general. Inspector A looks at a door during a home inspection. The door shows no visible signs of improper application and functions as intended. Inspector A says the door is acceptable. This would also apply to inspectors in the 49 other states.

Inspector X inspects the same door. The door has no permit on file and does not have the appropriate painted screws to prevent dissimilar metal corrosion. Inspector X says the door is defective due to lack of permitting and improper fasteners.

Is it a home inspectors job to exhaustively research and verify all shingles, windows, doors, etc, are permitted and NOA compliant when installed??? Or do we simply do a non-invasive visual inspection and report on actual defects that can be seen without required research and dismantling.

I think that those who created the SOP did a poor job because they fail to define specifics, that are specific to FL. The above is one example.

and now for more discussion…

Here is another scenario:
Inspector A inspects a home and lists no defects with the front door.
Inspector A does a wind mitigation inspection and can’t verify that the door is compliant. As a result, the client doesn’t get the all opening credit.

Since the SoP doesn’t limit you from doing a “code compliant” inspection as per the wind mitigation form, would you then be liable to replace the front door for the client as he has suffered a loss due to increased rates because of the door which can’t be verified?

If one were to really put their mind to it, like your average reptilian lawyer, one could have a field day with this. :mrgreen:

I would think that your PIA should explain the above. How you perform your inspection is best explained prior to, and making sure people understand what exactly they are paying for…:smiley:

IMO he never suffered a loss that was not his to begin with. :mrgreen:

Well then, if you know the actual door is not approved or the door was installed backwards :shock:, then AHJ missed the boat and you have every right to disqualify the door. I usually default to the permit, just like blessing re-roofs. But, if I see a blatant installation error, then I will not sign off on it.

Now that’s a stretch…

Then the permit is moot. Maybe someone switched the door after it was permitted. Who knows what people do.
The only reason I put the roof permit date is because the form asks for it. Same with question one.

Take for instance the re-nailing of the roof deck when a majority of the nails miss the truss. The form asks for the permit date of the re-roof.

Then in another question it asks for the nailing pattern, which if a majority of the nails missed the truss, it defaults to whatever was used when the home was built.

The form asks if the door is impact rated. It asks nothing about ensuring it is installed properly.
Nailing asks if the roof was nail according to. If not nailed properly then c becomes A.

A tough one indeed. I personally would say no credit if I indeed knew it was not properly installed.

I still dont have an answer to my original question. Sean has come the closest to giving a real answer. I was kind of hoping Meeker would answer the question.

Since the SoP doesn’t limit you from doing a “code compliant” inspection as per the wind mitigation form, would you then be liable to replace the front door for the client as he has suffered a loss due to increased rates because of the door which can’t be verified?

But in this instance the door was verified as being installed backwards. How many inspectors would point that out in their inpsection reports? Dont you owe your client a duty to inform them of what you know. We all know that the building deparment is not held liable for anything they do. And as Eric pointed out, the door could have been changed after the inspection. It is my gut feeling that most inspectors would go with the permit information and ingnore the fact that the door was installed wrong. Unfortunaately, on this board, there are only about 10 people that will respond. The rest sit in the background and never say anything.

Wouldn’t you have caught the door installed backwards from just the way its sealed/threshold? We catch these all the time, folks putting outswing french doors in as inswing doors, so irregardless of verifying the NOA, yes I would put a reverse installed door in the main inspection report. Those things leak water inside when put in reverse as you know. Hope this helps.

Actually, the form asks this:

In order to meet those standards, it has to be installed properly, according to the manufacturers instructions.

So, if you find a door that is installed as a swing in door, and it isn’t rated as one, then, the installation is improper and that is why it isn’t compliant. If it had been installed properly, it would be compliant.

If there are a bunch of rated shutters in the garage, but no brackets to install them, is the installation compliant?
I just did a wind mit on a house with that very scenario.
What if the tracks are laying in the garage? Or, take for instance my house, if the tracks on our back patio were removed so I don’t trip over them and are stored with the shutters?

Personally, I think if you are going to give a shutter credit, all of the shutters should be installed at the time of inspection. Don’t tell the OiR that though! :mrgreen:

Maybe, but, it can happen. :wink: :wink: :wink:

If I knew the door was installed backwards, then yes I would indeed say it was wrong in the report. Thats based on visible defects we can see.
I would also not give them credit for a door that was not designed to work as intended.
I didnt give credit to a home once because some of the shutter screw mounts on the outside didn’t exist. Not sure if it was past repairs or what, but if the screw mounts don’t exist then how can you attach the shutters correctly.

That would be correct. When I run into this situation (happens frequently), I always advise them to correct this and only after, then we can submit the 1802.


I would have but Bill I am kind of worried about ya now days. I feel like the Road Runner standing next to the free bird seed pile :frowning: Kind of the main reason I have stopped answering so many wind mit questions lately. I do not really feel like inspectors are helping inspectors anymore but inspectors are trying to set up inspectors…I have only tried to help inspectors since I became aware of them. Once I became a InterNACHI member. I never even thought about them before that.

…what about embedment, edge distance, on-center spacing, approved type anchors, applicable wind pressures, approved lengths, extruded attachments? All of these require inspection to confirm compliance with the listed standards and codes on the form including the NOA/Product Approval.

The NOA/Approval is only valid when installed in direct compliance with the approval AND the Florida Building Code, this is written on every approval given. Nothing less…