Thread: Door stoppers

Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?

Similar Threads:

• door tread or landing
• garage door terminology
• decayed exterior door jambs
• garage door reversing informationm - by request
• Garage Door reinforcement

No, but then I don't hang around in the "Fire Insurance" chat rooms....

BTW, if a claim can be denied for any reason, real or imagined, it will be.

What door? If it is supposed to be fire rated then the doggie door gives the insurance co. an out. Same with the stop on the fire door.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?

I have not heard of it, but I would not doubt it at all.

If there is an actual "fire-rated door", then propping it open in any way, shape or form (such as a door stopper or doggie door) completely defeats the purpose of the fire-rated door and if the fire spreads from one side of the door to the other, yeah, why should the insurance company foot the bill?

If the fire was contained to one side of the door, then the only problem may be smoke damage to the other side.

It also depends on how long the fire lasted before it was put out, if the fire lasted 1 hour and there was a 20-minute rated door there, then the door would be expected to fail before the 1-hour rated wall would fail, but there are all the things stated above to consider too.

First, though, was a "fire-rated door" even required there? THAT is the very first question which needs to be answered, because if a fire-rated door is not required there, then leaving it open would not really make much difference than having a regular door there.

Thanks for the replies. Of course anything that compromises the integrity of the fire door is a safety issue. That's what we report.

The issue of insurance came up today, and I had never heard of it, but it makes sense that an insurance company could deny a claim due to a modified fire door.

Intermediate passageways can have self-closing firedoors which are held open via an electromagnet which fused and/or relay allows door to close.Yes on both the claims being rejected, due to negligence of occupant having intentionally interferred, yes on major liability determinations in forensic investigations, litigation and criminal liability, and yes on underwriters refusing to cover or recinding coverage when they discover such modifications.Multi tenant, multi-occupancy, commercial, industrial, settings have encountered carriers refusing underwriting or canceling coverage when interferrance with firedoors is discovered on insurance risk audit/inspection, or citation pattern discovered.If you're asking about in instance of single family residential, not licensed for home day-care/child care, someone converting attached garage door to residence or breezeway to dutch door or door having doggie door, no. Such an instance in single family residence with attached garage, altering previously solid door between attached garage and home, after home was licensed and insurance carrier advised, operating licensed day care home, and owners later modified door, and an incident (flash over as opened o/h door while children attending the day-care home) yes. Your greater area (north) mid 80s or early 90s, one in particular both husband and wife were prosecuted too.

H.G.,

That is great info. But when inspecting for a buyer we would have no idea what their plans are for the house (like daycare, conversion, etc).

I brought up the topic because the issue came up at an inspection. There was a door stopper on a SFR fire door between a garage and the living space. No other alterations. No day care, no conversion, just a standard attached garage. We recommend removal for safety, but the topic of insurance came up.

I think we (HI's) should always recommend removal of the stopper, and certainly call out any other alterations/malfunctions of a fire door in a residence. The insurance topic is a secondary reason for removing it.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

I brought up the topic because the issue came up at an inspection. There was a door stopper on a SFR fire door between a garage and the living space.

Finally, just where I thought this was coming from and why I stressed that point: "First, though, was a "fire-rated door" even required there? THAT is the very first question which needs to be answered, because if a fire-rated door is not required there"

First, an oft repeated mantra here ... repeat after me - "In SFR there is no fire wall between a garage and a living space, which means there is no fire door between a garage and a living space."

Sit with your legs crossed and hum that slowly 30 times.

I believe that CA *might* have had a requirement for a fire wall and a fire door between the SFR living space and its garage, but I'm not even sure they did.

Now to alter your mantra ... repeat "SFR only as *separation* walls between the living space and their attached garages. And fire doors are not required in those *separation* walls."

20 min fire rated doors are required at attached garage/house passage. No humming required. I'll state this S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Since the 1940's (I have a code book from the City of San Diego which states this) the wall, in a garage, that is attached to or opposite a living space, must be covered in fire resistive material such as fire rated sheetrock. And the D-O-O-R must be a 20 minute fire rated door.

Phew! Did everyone keep up?

That was a tough concept which had nothing to do with the original question which was:

"Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?"

That's it. Just an insurance question, not an inquisition about whether or not a fire door is require, etc.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

20 min fire rated doors are required at attached garage/house passage. No humming required. I'll state this S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Y-O-U M-E-A-N in CA 20 minute doors are required between the house and the garage, T-H-E-Y A-R-E N-O-T required in the other codes, such as the IRC, however, there may be a specific AHJ here and there which may require it, but basically, in the most widespread used codes, 20 minute fire rated doors are not required.

Thus the need to specify location and not make blanket statements.

Once again, this was a question about insurance being denied if a fire door was blocked or modified in a residence. Why would I ask if fire doors were not required?

Also, isn't this an interesting topic for discussion? Maybe someone could learn something and avoid liability. Isn't that what this discussion board is about? Or does every question have to be a pissing contest?

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Once again, this was a question about insurance being denied if a fire door was blocked or modified in a residence. Why would I ask if fire doors were not required?

"Why would I ask if fire doors were not required?"

Because: a) you did not say this was applicable to your specific area; and, b) you did not say that in your specific area where this was asked that 20 minute fire doors are required.

With an open ended question as was posted, and with the vast, vast, majority of the codes NOT requiring a fire rated door there, the first answer to that question would be "If a fire rated door was NOT required then there would be no reason to deny any claim based on a fire rated door being open or otherwise kept from closing."

Which is why we all went round and round the mulberry bush trying to figure out where the door was which was being asked about and in what occupancy it was located.

It would be like me asking if it was night out - the answer to that very basic question would be "It depends." as it would depend on a lot of things, first and foremost would be your location and the time of day at your location. The second answer would be "Yes.", followed by an equally true "No."

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It would be like me asking if it was night out - the answer to that very basic question would be "It depends." as it would depend on a lot of things, first and foremost would be your location and the time of day at your location. The second answer would be "Yes.", followed by an equally true "No."

That is a great analogy. "It depends..." would have been a wonderful response from you. Instead you go down the path of condescention. Kudos.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Once again, this was a question about insurance being denied if a fire door was blocked or modified in a residence. Why would I ask if fire doors were not required?

Also, isn't this an interesting topic for discussion? Maybe someone could learn something and avoid liability. Isn't that what this discussion board is about? Or does every question have to be a pissing contest?

Actually, that wasn't how your question was phrased, had it been I wouldn't have wasted so much time responding about other occupancies.

Your original posted question was titled "Door stoppers" and read thusly:

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?

.

Fenced properties with patrol dogs oftentimes have "doggie doors". Single family residences are not the only places with doggie doors. Your post referenced door stops and was titled so.

Please don't go on with attitude then re-write history. You didn't mention a residence until after I addressed your what you actually asked and the limited parameters you set in your original question and the limited discussion which appeared at that time. You made NO mention as to occupancy - not residential, single family, TRO, dormatory, commercial, industrial, nada, nuttin.

You also mentioned nothing about your question pertaining to a Home Inspection. So that thanks, BUT statement is attitude undeserved!

IIRC you've made some multi-inspector firm references, for all I know your multi-inspector "office" got nailed on an Ins. Risk Audit Inspection, OSHA, Workman's Comp investigation, or you had a casualty loss claim!

Again, stop re-writing history and dishing out "attitude", because you post ambiguous wide open questions with no details, and get angry because we cannot read your mind or intent and you don't communicate it well; and don't like the responses or are annoyed by them.

I'd like citations please on your reference that only a 20-minute RATED FIRE DOOR is and has been the only means allowed as a passage door between home and attached garage, single family residential in San Diego County. Thank you in advance for your prompt reply to that request.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

20 min fire rated doors are required at attached garage/house passage. No humming required. I'll state this S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Since the 1940's (I have a code book from the City of San Diego which states this) the wall, in a garage, that is attached to or opposite a living space, must be covered in fire resistive material such as fire rated sheetrock. And the D-O-O-R must be a 20 minute fire rated door.

Phew! Did everyone keep up?

That was a tough concept which had nothing to do with the original question which was:

"Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?"

That's it. Just an insurance question, not an inquisition about whether or not a fire door is require, etc.

I must see this "book"! from 1940? really? for the City of San Diego?

Got this from the County of San Diego (clickable link to their pdf):
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/dplu/d...498_public.pdf

Checklist, see "E. GARAGE REQUIREMENTS" beginning at bottom of page 3 of 9, and continuing atop page 4 of 9...pay special attention to Number 4 (reference citations indicate no local county ammendments):

1. Provide 1/2" gypsum board from floor to roof sheathing on garage side of walls separating garage and ewelling unit or provide 1/2" gypsum board at all garage walls and 5/8" Type X gypsum board at garage ceiling (CBC 406.1.4)

2. Provide 5/8" Type X gypsum board at garage ceilings with habital rooms above and 1/2" gypsum board at walls supporting this floor/ceiling fire separation (CBC 406.1.4 and 711.4)

3. Fire-protected columns and posts subject to vehicular impact require corner guards or metal jacketing for full protection not less than 5'0" from the finished floor. (CBC 714.4)

4. Door between garage and dwelling shall be self-closing, self-latching, and either 1-3/8" thick solid wood, 1-3/8" thick solid or honeycomb-core steel, or 20-minute fire-protection rated. (CBC 406.1.4).

5. Doors may not swing from house into garage for drops exceeding 1/2" (CBC 1008.1.6). Dimension step from house to garage.

6. Under no circumstances are garages allowed to open into a room used for sleeping purposes. (CBC 406.1.4)

7. Garage slabs/floors require 1/8" 12" minimum slope directed to drains or main vehicle entry doorway. (CBC 406.1.3).

So again, please advise citation of a City of San Diego ordinance or ammendment, etc. or a County of San Diego ammendment, ordinance, etc. that requires a 20 minute fire protection rated door and prohibits or excludes the other options for the door between attached garage and single family residence.

H.G. You are correct. The section of this thread says home AND commercial inspections. I should have indicated that my question pertained to a home. I assume that the vast majority of the topics on this board relate to home inspections. My mistake.

My question was really not that hard and I did not intend for it to be a drawn out technical discussion regarding the term "fire door", "20-minute". "1-3/8". etc. The term "fire-door" is kind of a generic term referring to the door between the dwelling and garage.

The questions was regarding insurance denial based on "the door" between the garage and house being blocked. Perhaps a reply could have been "your question doesn't provide enough info, can you clarify?"

With regard to attitude, nearly every discussion on this board starts with a simple question, but quickly turns into mud slinging due to some arrogant people on this thread. I only reply with the same tone as those who start with the attitude, most often Mr. Peck with his smart-a** comments like "Sit with your legs crossed and hum that slowly 30 times".

FYI (not that it is any of your business but for clarification) I have made reference to a multi inspection company because that is what I have, several inspectors (4 full time one part time) doing a great job. And no we have never been sued, we have workers comp, and we don't do commercial inspections. But thanks for making the outlandish assumption that we have been "nailed".

I'm done with this board.

This site is doomed.

Why "done"?

Because there is no such restrictive ammendment in the San Diego Municipal Code? Because you misrepresented the applicable code? Because of your claim that a fire resistive assembly was required? Because of your claims that such has been required since 1940 in the SDMC were and are unsupportable?

If you can't support your claims, or now realize they were in error, why not just admit that, investigate it, chalk it up to having learned something (or not) and move on?

Sure the vast majority are R-3 type discussions, but not exclusively.When one makes claims such as you have on this thread topic, it is reasonable to ask that they be supported, especially if they are or appear to be in opposite to not only the written language of a particular jurisdiction's controlling laws and ordinances - but if checking with the Authoritiy Having Jurisdiction, the response is contradictory to what one posts here....it is reasonable to ask for citations.

That is the case here regarding your claims being in conflict with what is allowed/permitted/acceptable under the Municipal Code, city of San Diego, County of San Diego and CBC in effect at the present time, thus the request for citations.

Either/or no exclusive restriction to a Section 715.4.3 door (20-min) as you claimed, is what all three Authorities have indicated to me for an unglazed door between private parking garages and their attachment to Group R-3 occupancies.

I tried to imagine where you might have accquired such erroneous thinking, considered possiblity of glazed door on exterior might have confused you - but even 145.050.4(c) and (i) General Regulations and Building Standards of SDMC doesn't "go there" regarding exclusive ammendatory language to CBC - options other than 20-min door are still in place there too.

Seems quite clear if chapters of the CBC are adopted "without ammendment" that's what that means, if there have been no further ordinances drafting ammendments to those chapter sections, where does this come from?

Have a nice day.

H.G. with all due respect, I do come here to learn. And to bring up topics which I think others can learn from.

But these threads go so off topic. Who ever brought up glazing etc? You keep saying that I was wrong, but I didn't go down the path of defining what type of door should be installed. You guys threw that in. I was generically referring to the door between the house and dwelling, and if stoppers could cause an insurance claim to be denied (or a pet door cut into this door). That's it. Simple.

I did say I was wrong not to clarify what type of structure (house vs commercial). I have no problem saying I'm wrong - when I am.

My reference to the old building code was simply to say that a (generically) fire-doors - yes there are options - has been required for a long time. I did not intend to imply that only a 20 minute door was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

H.G. with all due respect, I do come here to learn. And to bring up topics which I think others can learn from.

But these threads go so off topic. Who ever brought up glazing etc? You keep saying that I was wrong, but I didn't go down the path of defining what type of door should be installed. You guys threw that in. I was generically referring to the door between the house and dwelling, and if stoppers could cause an insurance claim to be denied (or a pet door cut into this door). That's it. Simple.

I did say I was wrong not to clarify what type of structure (house vs commercial). I have no problem saying I'm wrong - when I am.

My reference to the old building code was simply to say that a (generically) fire-doors - yes there are options - has been required for a long time. I did not intend to imply that only a 20 minute door was acceptable.

1. You only come here to learn. Well that's not how you present yourself. Your first three topic threads (comprising your first fifteen months of membership/participation on this board) were devoted to promoting your buisness, insulting others, and promoting your interest in an "inspection tool".

Link:
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...html#post53204

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Holly ****! You guys are a bunch of assholes. I've tried to be nice and honest with my responses. But why the dog pile?

Not one of you even knows how fair our pay or "split" is!! We are not taking 90% of the fees! We are paying a great percentage of the fees to the inspector.

Are you all that insecure that we are successfully growing our company? Your businesses must be sucking wind if you are that threatened by someone who can offer a job to handle all the work we are getting.

VICTOR: You said we can find an idiot? We specifically don't want a guy just out of inspector school because we don't want an idiot! That's why I asked for experience. DON'T YOU GET THAT???

WHY DON'T YOU ALL JUST MIND YOUR OWN F'N BUSINESS

Your very first topic thread and participation went so far as to insult, offend, use vulgar language, etc. (August 2008 "employment offer"), you behaved so badly on that thread, YOU WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED when you started a similar thread in April 2009, your next participation was November 2009 wherein you were promoting a conductive brace as a must-have inspection tool for inspecting outdoor panels. Seems subsequently you have been promoting other business activities, ADA inspections, a chat board devoted to same, and other. I detect patterns of promotion, sarcasm, and insults. Yes, "I'm one to talk!"

2. You didn't "imply" such 20-minute rating was required in this topic thread, YOU SAID IT WAS. Very sarcastically, and with "attitude". You were and are wrong. It was neither required "then" nor now.

3. Since you had made such outlandish claims, I investigated your claims that the City of San Diego had such a requirement. I spoke to current officials. By the way, in so doing I "heard" of such instances to which you initially asked about - interferrance with self-closing and latching mechanisms or integrated safety closure provisions in R-3 group occupancies with attached parking garages - both single family and others. I have little interest in verifying the details of those relatively recent history, fire investigation reports, forensic investigations, court activites, etc. where-in insurance carriers declined coverage, that I have "heard about" in the last 24 hours, since I won't be participating in the future. If you are interested, go right ahead.

4. You have represented yourself as a certified ADA access specialist in California, and claimed it has "grown your business", or something to that effect. There is little demand for same in single family homes. "Shame on me"??? for recalling your activites (as your participation in discussions has covered commercial on that subject) MIGHT include something other than single family residential home inspections for buyers! You "implied" you were offering such as a new service, a while back on an e&o insurance thread, and your status "credentials" on someone else's thread inquiring about exceptions/access for IIRC a dining establishment with covered/uncovered ramp and foyer/access/sidewalk encroachment "issues".
Therefore, I believe it was reasonble for me to have "remembered" that your scope of buisness operations went beyond R-3 buyer's "home inspections", since you have represented ADA access "code type" inspections in California! (post 114021 on this board). Perhaps it was just another "growing business" post of yours promoting the linked "discussion board".

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

I am a Certified Access Specialist in CA. Here's what is needed:
First, they must put 20% of the budget towards ADA/CA Titile 24 upgrades. They cannot claim a financial hardship, then spend a bunch of money on moving an exterior wall. They can claim a hardship from being FORCED to move a load bearing wall to comply. But if they are electively doing improvements, they MUST spend the 20% on access. I don't believe that they got an exemption from this from the City of L.A. They are tough.
A door must have level landings on both sides. The landings must be at least 60 inches wide, and depending on which way the door swings (in or out - I'm assuming the new door will swing out) the landing outside may need to be more than 60 inches deep in the direction of the swing. 48 inches deep on the side of the door opposite the door swing.
There also must be 24 inches of clear space at the strike side of the door (18 inches at the interior). This is to allow a wheelchair user to get close enough to the handle.
If anyone is interested in access issues, we are about to launch a free Access-Issues forum at CASp Discussion Board <http://www.casp-inspector.com>.

Then of course there's your discussions on this thread (which you started):
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...html#post73024

5. You have further, most recently contributed this to the "fire door" inspection thread:

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

At least this thread has touched on one philosophy; home inspectors should be open to expanding their service offerings *with the proper training*.
There are many different inspection services that could be added to an inspector's business. Commercial inspections is just one example. It is quite different from residential, with a lot more liability, but with *proper training* many HI's are making money at it.
I decided to provide ADA inspections and created a whole business around it. It took a lot of training, and is a highly litigious filed, but it is great work.
NACHI is but one source of information. They have a business model just like any other organization. Nearly all of the HI organizations are in it to make money. They all offer classes, trade shows, certifications, etc. for money. NACHI has proven to be a great starting point for many people in this field. But all inspectors should learn from multiple sources. I think that is why we all read this discussion board - it is a fun place to learn all sorts of new information.

Since that last quoted post pre-dated mine...Again, I think it was REASONABLE to have recalled (IIRC) that your BUSINESS ACTIVITIES included inspection of OTHER THAN strictly residential use/residential occupancies that did not include any business activities therein (even home day-care).

So enough of the attitude. You started off here with it, and it flares up regularly in your limited participation during your history here.

This "generic" excuse does not fly. You jump on those with questions, become defensive, offensive, vulgar, sarcastic, make outrageous claims, then excuses. When you're called on or questioned about things you go into attack mode, and ignore legitimate questions from others. Your language was somewhat precise, and the meaning was clear as you made such erroneous statements/claims.

I honestly think you should go back and review all the unanswered questions that linger from your prior contributions on this forum, and your demonstrated behavior/attitude/tone of your posts to many.

There aren't that many to review - you too may "see" the unflattering patterns displayed when read together.

HG:

Reported.

"HG:

Reported."


I'm tired of reading his rants.
I think I try
Ignored

Apparently, only certain people can post questions. The self-appointed "post monitors", such as HG Watson, have gone unchallenged for far too long.

Simply typing dozens of paragraphs in response to someone's post, or cutting & pasting code sections over and over again, doesn't make that person smarter, even though they try...over and over, and over and (sigh) over again...


Heaven help those that cross the "vocal loud mouths" on this board; namely Dr's Watson & Peck. Maybe the Admin will step in, but I doubt it....this site is a free-for-all.

As of today, nothing has changed.

Post at your own risk.

Good luck...

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

H.G. with all due respect, I do come here to learn. And to bring up topics which I think others can learn from.

But these threads go so off topic. Who ever brought up glazing etc? You keep saying that I was wrong, but I didn't go down the path of defining what type of door should be installed. You guys threw that in. I was generically referring to the door between the house and dwelling, and if stoppers could cause an insurance claim to be denied (or a pet door cut into this door). That's it. Simple.

I did say I was wrong not to clarify what type of structure (house vs commercial). I have no problem saying I'm wrong - when I am.

My reference to the old building code was simply to say that a (generically) fire-doors - yes there are options - has been required for a long time. I did not intend to imply that only a 20 minute door was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

20 min fire rated doors are required at attached garage/house passage. No humming required. I'll state this S-L-O-W-L-Y.

Since the 1940's (I have a code book from the City of San Diego which states this) the wall, in a garage, that is attached to or opposite a living space, must be covered in fire resistive material such as fire rated sheetrock. And the D-O-O-R must be a 20 minute fire rated door.

Phew! Did everyone keep up?

That was a tough concept which had nothing to do with the original question which was:

"Has anyone heard of insurance being denied, or a fire claim being denied, because there was a door stopper installed on a fire door? Or a pet door cut into the door?"

That's it. Just an insurance question, not an inquisition about whether or not a fire door is require, etc.

Originally Posted by Philippe Heller

Once again, this was a question about insurance being denied if a fire door was blocked or modified in a residence. Why would I ask if fire doors were not required?

Also, isn't this an interesting topic for discussion? Maybe someone could learn something and avoid liability. Isn't that what this discussion board is about? Or does every question have to be a pissing contest?

You didn't IMPLY it you stated it, more than once.

I provided you the SD county references and CBC and review of San Diego City Municipal Code. It covers both door type, and self-closure and self-latching mechanisms. Your statements/represenations are unsupportable. If you are indeed here to learn, review what has been offered by Mr. Peck and myself regarding the distinctions WITH a DIFFERENCE, and pay attention to what really WAS, IS and IS NOT REQUIRED.

Also keep in mind that when a policy is endorsed with "discount" provisions or riders for having certain devices, etc. failure to have those in place and in working condution, un-encumbered by modifications, negligent maintenance, intentional interferrance, etc. is often employed as a valid excuse to void the coverage entirely. Questionaires, applications, renewal statements, notices, subsequent endorsements, notification provisions (so upon election additional premium or riders can be considered by the insurer during periods of less-than-acceptable condition risk can be addressed), acceptance of renewal terms, all become incorporated into the "contract". Fraudulent applications/renewals/misstatements/misrepresentations, etc. are often grounds to retroactively recind, revoke, nullify, void - with refund of premiums paid in all areas of insurance - as "material" therefore no contract existed in the first place. There is generally more than one area of coverage/type in the average HO policy. You might further research your questions from the state insurance authorities, the fire officials, and even your own personal HO insurer/agent for some "adjuster's" resources/references, there are also resources regarding independant adjusters. You might also engage some research court cases/opinions if this interests your further. Perhaps your E&O if that's the direction the question is truly concerning.