You guys have done this to yourselves by not being professional and only looking at the cheapest and easiest way to make money by doing the least amount of work. As professionals we should be elevating the industry, not lowering it. You may hate what Mr Sheppard is saying, but his is right on in this statement. Not everything is black and white when it comes to the 1802. It was never meant to be a check box form as so many think. As you can see by the posts about wind mitigations, there are several areas that require much more knowledge than most inspectors have, or for that matter, are willing to get through education.
And its no different in the home inspection industry today either. Take a silly online course, study and take a test and everyone is an instant expert in home inspections. You have $50 wind mits and now you have $200 inspections, and some of those include the insurance inspections. Our industry is sinking to new lows. If you dont believe me look at some of the sample reports that are on home inspector web sites. Most of them do not come close to following the standards, and most list only items anyone can see while walking around the house. I have seen very few that will recommend replacement on anythng. They all call for furhter evaluation by a licnesed contractor. Are not home inspectors licnesed contractors? Heck, I saw one not too long ago that mentioned snow loads, and the guy lived in southeast Florida. He also called for gutters, saying the lack of them was causing mold on the fascia. From the pictures he showed the roof needed to be replaced.
Make no mistake about it, this will all work itself out as more inspectors get sued. Unfortunately the state will not do anythng to up the requirements, and neither will any of the assocaitions. I have seen this business go from an honorable profession to what I now call a wefare business, where inspectors do nothing and get paid for it. Its a shame. And unfortunately, the ones we were supposed to protect, the public, are suffering form it.
Your initial statement is true, but the carriers have the final say. Of course an assembly can have a local approval, if verifiable. These are not signed off by the the AHJ unless it has engineering (usually site specific). This has been said before, many times.
We are talking about a common occurrence of applying an approved storm protection device over just the glazed portion of a non-rated door, and only attached to the door panel itself . It’s just not approved, period. :roll:
You guys can contact me for these if you don’t want to deal with them (within reasonable distance of course). RS is attempting to bring these to a level that is not warranted. I understand them relatively sufficient .
I do believe the law, FSS 627.711, does state that any 1802 produced by a licensed Home Inspector shall be considered as valid by an insurer:
627.711 (2)(a) ………… An insurer shall accept as valid a uniform mitigation verification form signed by the following authorized mitigation inspectors:
Lacking the backbone to stand your ground, or the education to reinforce it, is another issue altogether. No place in the statute does it allow for the “insurer” to decide if the information you provide is accurate, or to change it. They may ask “additional questions”, but in doing so that would most likely confirm the previous statement. That the inspector lacked the backbone or education to reinforce it. Make no mistake, this issue has come about for the same reason as HI’s bowing down to realtors. It’s simply just another “agent” arse to kiss.
Being as the property in question most likely isn’t located in the HVHZ, the non-glazed openings wouldn’t be required to be protected or rated. AGAIN, this is essentially the same as a non-rated, non-glazed, front door with a sidelite. We have protected literally thousands of them with a single panel either mounted to the door frame OR interior substrate opening. The doors are not required to be “rated”, only “tested”. The inspector would need to go to the AHJ to determine this. Also, inform the owner of the property that contacting the manufacturer of the door may provide clarification on if the installation is acceptable.
Don’t assume Bradley…….you actually have no idea if the door is rated or not as it was never stated by the OP.
As for the local approval, you are wrong yet again. “Engineering” is not the only method of approval. It can be either a test lab report, evaluation entity, certification entity, or an FRA/FRE (Architect/Engineer). At some point people with no idea what they are doing need to stop telling others what to do, you’re making the profession look ridiculous!
Roy Lewis had the OP on the right path, the rest of you geniuses just confused the issue with your “opinions” pulled out of thin air. The point of the whole post should have been how to show the correct way to attain the answer for himself in the future.
I’ll bite. If you could, please go through in detail the specific differences between what could be considered a vent opening in a diaphragm wall and the opening provided in the garage service door for a pet. Remember, garages are vented to the exterior and openings for such are detailed in the building code.
Are you trying to say the door panel couldn’t be modified in any way? The door isn’t “rated” or required to be rated in certain areas, only “tested”. Shutters can be cut/modified and the approval is still valid, and they are rated.
Again, the purpose of the post should be to educate the OP in how to find the answer for himself…and more importantly, understand it. After all, he may need to defend the position.
The OP should contact the door manufacturer and the hurricane screen manufacturer, he should question them on the application and modification of the door. This way he knows for sure and the information will be useful in the future. I’m not sure “because Bradley said so” will fly…:roll:
Interesting take. I always loved the argument “I installed shutters and did it that way for years” love the sidelte argument. If the entire assembly isn’t rated you can’t modify part of it to make it qualify. A glazed opening is a glazed opening is a glazed opening
mmaizel
(Marvin Maizel, CMI® Fl State Lic HI 681)
31
Could you please show me where that statement comes from?
“Are you trying to say the door panel couldn’t be modified in any way?”
Wrong again…
553.8425 Local product approval.— (3) Local building officials may accept modifications to approved products or their installations if sufficient evidence is submitted to the local building official to demonstrate compliance with the code or the intent of the code, including such evidence as certifications from a Florida registered architect or Florida professional engineer.
In the nicest way possible, please stop giving other inspectors advice about things you clearly do not understand. You are making the industry look ridiculous…
mmaizel
(Marvin Maizel, CMI® Fl State Lic HI 681)
34
Mr. Sheppard;
It appears that you are saying that doors…non-glazed…located outside of the HVHZ do not have to be rated. Is that true?
“Being as the property in question most likely isn’t located in the HVHZ, the non-glazed openings wouldn’t be required to be protected or rated”
In my area, and probably many other areas outside the HVHZ, non-glazed doors only have to be wind rated (design pressure) when replaced. An impact rated non-glazed door would be an option.
I still don’t think the OP’s door will get a modification approval with a PET DOOR on it…
Robert, you need to pay attention here. We are talking about retrofits of third party devices or modifications to an existing door…fat chance of any engineering and local approvals for these. It’s a lot like retrofitting vertical wind braces on a garage door. Sure it helps, but it does not give the door a new rating.
mmaizel
(Marvin Maizel, CMI® Fl State Lic HI 681)
37
I believe he is stating “…protected or rated”. I read that to mean that, in Robert’s opinion, all non-glazed doors outside of the HVHZ do not have to have any rating on them at all.
If that is true I believe we all need to know. The form does not seem to follow that logic.
If that is just Robert’s opinion…I understand, but if that is written somewhere I would sure like to know.
The 1802 does allow for wind ratings on non-glazed doors. The FBC does not mandate impact ratings for non-glazed doors outside the HVHZ. Look it up yourself.
And yet there are past posts on here about inspectors accepting a non-engineered strap retrofits because a third nail has now been added or some retrofit company says they are OK. Cant be one for one thing and another for the next item
