Insurance/permits/codes

[dlminehart]

The recent discussion about building codes, permits, and insurance leads me to wonder whether a lack of a permit, or meeting a code, for one thing can justify an insurance company in not paying up for an unrelated thing. For instance, if a house has a gas line modified without a permit and/or not up to code, and the house has an unrelated electrical fire, can the insurance company refuse to pay based on the other code/permit violation? Or, for that matter, if a loss was due to a problem somewhere in the gas line, can a lack of permit or code violation elsewhere in the line be cause for not paying?

Also, if one buys an older house and later finds that some work had been done on it by the previous owner without permits, can one get a permit after the fact so long as the work can pass inspection?

[Ed62]

I'll bypass the first question because it might be a legal thing. But for your second question, the answer is yes. You can always get a permit to update the work. But it will have to pass inspection(s).

Ed

[JR]

I have the same answers as Ed. I don't know anything about the first one.

The second one is as Ed said. In fact, it's common in CA to waive un-permitted changes when the property changes hands. The buyer can get permits at any time, provided the change meets code. Bear in mind that some changes require visibility by an inspector, so the change may need to be "opened up" before the permit can be issued.

JR