Long ago in a land far far away. It was the insurance underwriter who did evaluations on a facility's fire sprinkler systems. It was their evaluation of what they thought was a deficiency. The issue(s) were presented to the owner and the owner either addressed the issue or they didn't and their response resulted in an adjustment to the premium charged up or down.
Most of my experience with this was with large industrial facilities which were typically an FM account. As a day-work guy I would look forward to this punch list. You got a call did a walk through priced it up, produced a bid and the owner weighed the cost benefit issues.The underwriter identified the deficiency, they approved or stamped the drawing. We did the work, filed all the required paper work, the underwriter inspected the work on the next scheduled evaluation.Rinse and repeat simple. We had liability for the workmanship and materials that's it done. The key word here is liability, now it's game on as to who gets left holding the bag and why 25 is such a week standard. Shifting of liability is like a game a musical chairs nobody want to be the guy left standing when the music stops. Mike Cabral Cell 314-412-1800 On Friday, November 8, 2013 7:23 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: I guess we could go back to yester-year: 1/2" and 3/4" SSU and SSP. Pipe Scheduled Trees. No Backflow. Is Sway Bracing required? No matter where it is, if it is an Essential Facility, yes, if not, no. Were there a lot of failures way back when?, before you had to have a PHD in Philosophy and a Law Degree? -----Original Message----- From: Roland Huggins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA25 scope ACtually this issue is much broader than NFPA 25. NFPA is asking the question, what if anything that it do to reduce the number of failures of the sprinkler system to control the fire (due to changes of contents changes in the water supply, etc where the water discharge is not enough to control the fire). One of the question is should verifying the adequacy of the sprinkler system be part of an NFPA 25 inspection or some other NFPA document? That is the starting point for this thread. What do you gals and guys think? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:09 PM, "Douglas Hicks" <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/november-december- 2013/features/closer-look?order_src=C246 > > More on 25 and the scope of 25. > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
