NFPA 13 DEFICIENCIES? 1

[NJ1]

This is why you must train your guys to keep within the scope.
I obtain this information from an article in the Fire Protection Contractor Magazine.

Loss: $12,000,000--What Happened?
Our contractor performed annual inspections at our shopping center. He had being doing so for years. The strip plaza was sprinklered, but the exterior overhang was not protected by sprinklers. The contractor used industry standard reports, but on several occasions the inspector made notes in the comments section that where outside the scope of NFPA 25. Items such as spacing of the heads, temperature ratings of heads, and the need to add a head in an area of the building, where added to the comments section. The inspector never noted the non-sprinklered exterior overhang in his reports. A fire started outside the building and traveled up the overhang into the roof. Building was destroyed.

The property insurance carrier for the store subrogated against the sprinkler contractor for failing to inform the non-sprinklered area. When the contractor argued that it was outside the scope of NFPA 25 the produced all past inspection reports with numerous comments that where also outside of NFPA 25.
The property carrier argued that the building owner saw the contractor as "the expert" and assume the report covered all areas and all inadequacies of the system.

This is why you have to be careful, make certification mandatory and make random stops at your client facilities to ensure your inspectors are on top of their game.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I have warned our inspectors of this time and time again. If we are ever sued it will not be because of me, the management or our installer crews but of something our inspectors did or didn't do.]/b]

We are there to inspect the mechanical operation of your equipment that we assume was installed correctly whenever it was done. If the system was installed in 1924 how do you know if it was installed according to standard or not? You got a copy of NFPA #13 1924 Edition?

If NFPA doesn't say to note non-sprinkled areas then you don't do it.

 

[NJ1]

SprinklerDesigner2

It is 2011 and many, many companies are still making this mistake. I dont understand why but my only explanation is because the department manager is not certified neither therefor he is not clear on what the scope is to be.
That is very sad and unacceptable.

 

[chicopee]

What about the architect's responsibilty. Isn't he the one who should have spec'ed sprinkler protection under the overhang when he drew his plans. About the fire department and building inspector's responsibilties when they accepted his plans? and about the insurance company that the architect has, normally it has fire protection people who would check his prints? I think subrogation for losses should have included the above entities espacially the architectural firm.

 

[chicopee]

By the way what started the fire outside?

 

[NJ1]

I do not know what started the fire outside since the insurance carrier did not elaborate on this.

chicopee

I see that you are thinking like a defendant but the bottom line is that the sprinkler inspector when outside his scope period. Let's not point fingers at anyone else.
The architect design the building and the engineer designs the fire protection system. They design based on adopted codes and latest standards.
As far as Fire Inspectors/Officials, dude I have news for you.
Hopefully my attachment comes out good. I wrote a magazine article about inspections, testing and maintenance and I found this be helpful to all us. It was originally written by some one else and it basically says that you can not blame any public inspector for any of their mistakes.

Is crazy right.

 

[b1ueshift]

Is there any reason to think that the outcome would have been different if the contractor had never pointed out any deficiencies that were not specifically mentioned in NFPA 25?

'The property carrier argued that the building owner saw the contractor as "the expert" and assume the report covered all areas and all inadequacies of the system.'

It's very difficult to ensure that you are never going to be subject to litigation. Where there is a loss, there can be a law suit.

Even if the service agreement was absolutely crystal clear that the service only covered the tasks specified under NFPA 25 and even if the inspector never did anything over and above the tasks specified in NFPA 25, the customer can still argue that the inspector indicated that NFPA 25 was adequate for maintaining the property. The inspector is the expert here, the property carrier cannot be expected to know whether any inspections should be performed in addition to NFPA 25.

 

[sprinkler1000]

I will make some comments on this.

I believe that the insurance company is trying to evade payment responsabilities. If they insured the property, they did knowing the protection installations existing in the building.

Maybe subrogation could go to the one that caused the fire.

The architect and the owner HAVE responsabilities, since they take decisions as to what type of protection they specify. But in this case, it seems there is compliance with NFPA 13. Blaming some guy from the maintenance company clearly looks like a scapegoat. The insurance company doesnt seem a respectable entity.

 

[NJ1]

I do not understand why after the proper documentation I have shown everyone seem not to understand that our field guys are responsible to some extent.
Guys the whole purpose of these thread is to get some sense on how to train our inspectors. Teach them what to write and what not to write. Blaming other people is not going to help you at all.
Sprinkler1000 makes a great point but at the end of the day the fire sprinkler inspector in this case acted like he was doing a systems analysis and that is why they had to pay.

 

[b1ueshift]

This is quite an interesting thread.

I would say it does seem unfair to sue the maintenance contractor, but that's the way the system works. After a $12M, the insurance company is going to look for someone to recover some of the cost from. The building was not built to code, the inspector failed to point this out and the non-compliance caused or contributed to a loss, so there is what is called a 'prima face' case. Obviously it's not the inspectors fault that the building wasn't built to code, so he isn't 100% responsible, but even if the inspector is only 10% at fault, $1.2M is still a lot of money that he can be held liable for.

One thing that might have made a difference is when the maintenance contractor offered their services, they could advise the owner (in writing) to do a fire safety audit of their building which should identify any obvious non-compliances with current codes. If the owner were to say, 'don't worry about that - we think the building was built to code, just do the regular maintenance', then the inspecting contractor would seem to be in a much better position.

 

[pipesnpumps]

That is a good idea b1ueshift, about putting it in writing up front that the inspector is advised the owner to do a safety audit so that it is clear.

That makes so much sense, I'm sure there has to be a catch.. I guess the catch would be, the owner hires the same contractor to do that! (be careful what you ask for).

And then the contractor thinks he finds something, but turns out it meets 1928 version of the standard.. And the owner sues the contractor anyway for pointing out things that met the standard at the time they were installed...

OR the system meets the 1928 standard, and the contractor has a copy of it to check, so the contractor doesn't write it up.. Then the building burns and the contractor is sued for not writing up the finding, since it is not in accordance with "current" standards.

lose lose I say.. Stick to NFPA 25. I'm dealing with lawyers today in fact. They are infuriating contrarians who are by their very nature abject of any sense of reasonableness or impartiality. maddening for a logical engineer.

 

[ContractorDave]

For a topic that's been beat to death there is still a lot of differing opinions. Quite simply, if you are doing inspections you are putting yourself at risk anyways. All you can do to do your job properly and mitigate these risks at the same time is follow 25 to the letter and have qualifying statements in the body of your inspection report to the effect that the inspection is performance related and not an engineers review.

Nonetheless, ask yourself this: if you do an inspection on a convalescence home and privately note something you are pretty sure is a problem and don't call it SOMEHOW, how are you going to feel if the place burns down and a lot of people die? You're covered ass isn't going to feel so good. What I have done with our reports is made it as plain as possible what is a "Deficiency" within the scope of the inspection and what is a "Recommendation". A Recommendation generally will include words to the effect that an engineers review is .... recommended.

There's balance that needs to be found here and this is where I have found mine. Life is a risk. I'm in a risk prone business. But I don't do inspections just to make money, I do them because I have clients who need them done properly and they trust me.

In a related situation, I have a client who has a fair sized furniture store with a warehouse in the back. He wishes to install an 8' x 10' overhead door. 8.5.5.3.1 requires coverage under the door. Do I give him a price of 4 hours and a little material to add a HSW off the 4" main that's right there and be done with it, or do I get the engineers involved to 'cover my butt'?

Regards
Dave

 

[NJ1]

Well I totally agree with lightecho. Life is a risk and our business is a bigger risk on its own.
My professional opinion is that whatever is NFPA 25 deficiency is definitely a SHALL and what ever is outside NFPA 25 is a SHOULD.
At the end it all falls on the property owner (if you identify the issue, if not it falls on the contractor)
In this particular case the sprinkler contractor thought they where doing a more comprehensive inspection when in fact they where digging their own grave.
Lets face it. The way contractors compete in the open market is stupid. This contractor most likely said "we do inspections right and up to code". After the fact they show no true comprehensive knowledge of NFPA 25 and or how to separate these issues.

I see this everyday. Companies going outside their scope just to show "more knowledge".
Like one you guys said:
This is a great example of a bad apple rotting the whole tree