Tag Archives: Construction and Maintenance

“No hail damage” Concluded Before the Roof Inspection?

April 21, 2021 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues, Property Insurance Tags: , , 2 Comments

Photo by Olya Kobruseva on Pexels.com

 

The engineer’s report I read today concluded, as follows:  “There was no functional damage due to hail observed on any of the roofs on the buildings at the subject property.  If hail occurred at the subject property, it did not have sufficient size, density, or speed to cause functional damage to the roof covering.”

My first reading of this conclusion sent up a red flag as I read “If hail occurred at the subject property …” since the report contained weather data showing that hail greater than 1.25″ had fallen at the site of the fifteen-year-old shingled roof on the date of loss and observations of hail dents were reported on all metals on and surrounding the roof.  How could “if hail occurred” even be a factor in a conclusion about the damage clearly reported to be caused by it, I wondered.  Then I began to look deeper.

My second reading of the report was an intense search for any mention of the engineer’s measurement or calculation of the density of the hailstones that he knew to have struck the roof or a determination of the distance or angle of their descent.  There was none.  Without that, how could the engineer, who had now come to question “if” hail had struck the roofing materials, conclude that the hail was known to have lacked the density or speed to cause damage?

I checked my files and found three other reports written by the same engineer from other claims I had represented.  Like this one, all of them were written at the request of an insurance company and all of them concluded the same absence of “observed” damage to the roof.  Oddly, however, each of the four reports stated the exact same conclusion in the exact same words – verbatim.

2017 – “There was no functional damage due to hail observed on any of the roofs on the buildings at the subject property.  If hail occurred at the subject property, it did not have sufficient size, density, or speed to cause functional damage to the roof covering.”

2020 – “There was no functional damage due to hail observed on any of the roofs on the buildings at the subject property.  If hail occurred at the subject property, it did not have sufficient size, density, or speed to cause functional damage to the roof covering.”

2021 – “There was no functional damage due to hail observed on any of the roofs on the buildings at the subject property.  If hail occurred at the subject property, it did not have sufficient size, density, or speed to cause functional damage to the roof covering.”

2021 – “There was no functional damage due to hail observed on any of the roofs on the buildings at the subject property.  If hail occurred at the subject property, it did not have sufficient size, density, or speed to cause functional damage to the roof covering.”

Not one of these narratives was supported with information as to how or if the density and speed of the hailstones were measured by the engineer to conclude their insufficiency to cause damage.  Nor did they report the direction of the storm, the angle at which the hailstones struck the roofing materials, the speed or direction of the wind at the time of the storm, or other relevant data required for scientific analysis of hail damage.  In other words, if one were to remove the boilerplate language apparently common to all of his reports, nothing appeared in the narrative that required an engineer to cite.  The same ambiguous and noncommital descriptions could have been just as easily written by a shingle salesman with poor marketing skills.

Last, but certainly not least, please pay special attention as to how this carefully worded boilerplate conclusion did not say there was no damage to the roof caused by hail.  Instead, the engineer simply stated that based only on his powers of observation, he didn’t see it.   

Could it be that these conclusions, like the language used to communicate them, had been predetermined prior to the inspection?

Copyright 2021, James H. Bushart, Licensed Adjuster LLC

 

 

This Blog/Web Site is made available by James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the work of a public adjuster, not to provide specific legal advice. The authors and/or site manager make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. By using this blog site you understand that there is no public adjuster/client relationship between you and James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC.  The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Why Missouri Contractors Cannot Negotiate Your Insurance Claim.

April 18, 2021 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues, Home Repairs, Property Insurance Tags: , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Missouri contractors cannot negotiate your insurance claim on your behalf with your insurance company.  On August 28, 2011, the Governor of Missouri signed into law Senate Bill 101 which prohibits home exterior contractors from representing a policyholder or negotiating on their behalf with their insurance company for exterior work on their home as a part of an insurance claim.

Here is a link to the law:   It is very clear.  

So why do insurance companies continue to negotiate with residential contractors in spite of this law?  Perhaps it is because, when they do, they can get away with underpaying your claim.

An insurance adjuster can say things to your contractor that he cannot say to you, your Missouri attorney or your Missouri licensed public adjuster because, unlike you (and those who lawfully represent you), the contractor is not a party to the agreement (the policy) between you and the insurance company. 

Insurance adjusters will often withhold certain information from the contractor, misrepresent or not fully disclose your coverage to the contractor, and say things to your contractor such as “We are not paying that much for that building material … Your estimate is too high for labor and you need to revise that … We are not going to pay more than such and such dollars for this claim … We won’t pay your overhead and profit” … and so forth because they are not communicating with you or anyone lawfully representing you.

It would be an act of bad faith, and perhaps a vexatious act carrying severe penalties, for the adjuster to say such things to you or to your lawful representative.  Why?  Because certain communications and actions between insurance companies, their policyholders, and their lawful representatives are regulated by the Missouri Department of Insurance. Such regulations, however, do not necessarily extend to their relationships with contractors and other vendors.  In their opinion, your contractor is representing his own interests and not yours. 

For example, when an insurance adjuster makes a statement of fact regarding your coverage to you or your lawful representative, he must respond with supporting language from your policy upon demand.  Not so, however, when the same demand is made by your contractor.  Since the contractor is not a party to the agreement or lawfully representing anyone who is, he is not entitled to know all of the important information the policy contains.  Withholding this information about your specific coverage from your contractor puts him in the dark and the insurance company’s adjuster in complete control. 

Some contractors mistakenly believe that since they have worked with certain insurance companies or adjusters in the past, all policyholders with that company have the same or similar coverage – which is not true.  Three or four neighbors living side by side on the same street can be insured by the same insurance carrier and have different policies with different coverage. Some contractors quote what they believe to be “state law” as to what an insurance company must pay for which is also not true.  In Missouri, state laws do not govern or control all of the information contained in an insurance policy, and policy interpretation disputes are settled in civil court and are generally not legislated.

I hold skilled and experienced exterior contractors in very high regard. They are important advisors for you and/or your lawful representatives in settling a claim.  Their skillful and experienced input in determining the full scope of the damage and what they charge for restoration of that damage is helpful, often vital, in settling your claim.  It is when they extend beyond their valuable construction skills and expertise and go beyond the “low hanging fruit” that the adjuster would pay anyway and (as some contractors advertise) “push” the adjuster toward a larger settlement, complete documentation, communicate with the carrier on your behalf and settle your claim, those and similar actions may not be in accord with the law and their results may not produce all of the money that you are entitled to.

Most damaging is the harm some do to your claim before you finally bring in qualified and lawful representatives, such as your attorney or licensed public adjuster, to assist you.  While their lack of ability to correctly interpret your coverage or communicate your rights under the policy may have limited their ability to help you fully resolve your claim, what they communicated to the insurance company (correctly or incorrectly) can interfere with a fair resolution and must be identified and resolved before progress can be made.

I work with many exterior contractors and help them operate within the boundaries that are set forth in Senate Bill 101, allowing them to focus upon their areas of skill and expertise to fully serve their customers’ construction needs.  Their customers are able to recover from their insurers what they require to restore their home to its pre-damaged condition and the contractor makes what he bids for the work that is required.  When it is done correctly, all parties are served in a win-win position.  When it is done improperly, however, some or all come out on the losing end.

Not all claims require an attorney or a public adjuster to handle them.  In fact, most can be handled directly by the policyholder with no representation at all, if they understand their rights under their contract with the insurance company and have a skilled contractor they trust to correctly inform them of their damage and what must be done to restore their property to its pre-loss condition.

No one but you, your Missouri attorney, or your Missouri licensed public adjuster should be communicating with your insurance company on your behalf, and remember that a “no” from the insurance adjuster to your exterior contractor is not the final word on your claim for damage.

 

 

 

This Blog/Web Site is made available by James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the work of a public adjuster, not to provide specific legal advice. The authors and/or site manager make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. By using this blog site you understand that there is no public adjuster/client relationship between you and James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster.  The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state, nor should it be used as a substitute for competent maintenance or repair advice from a qualified contractor licensed to perform work in your state.

Who Can Represent You With Your Hail/Wind Damage Claim

July 2, 2019 By in Home Owner Insurance Issues, Property Insurance Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment

Your contractor will prove to be a valuable resource to you as you present your insurance claim to your adjuster.  Without his skill and expertise, you will have a tough time communicating all that has been damaged and the work that will be necessary to restore your home to its original condition.  

You might have read the Missouri law that states that a roofing contractor cannot represent you with your insurance claim when communicating with your insurance company about the condition of your roof. Your insurance company’s adjuster certainly has.

Specifically, it reads in part “A contractor shall not represent or negotiate, or offer or advertise to represent or negotiate, on behalf of an owner or possessor of real estate on any insurance claim in connection with the repair or replacement of roof systems, or the performance of any other exterior repair, replacement, construction, or reconstruction work.” [Missouri Revised Statute Title XXVI, Trade and Commerce, 407.25]

You can represent your hail damage claim by yourself, or you may decide to hire an attorney or Missouri licensed public adjuster to represent you with your insurance claim. If you decide to have your roofing contractor do the talking for you, however, he represents only himself and his company’s financial interests in restoring your storm-damaged roof. Not you.

Accordingly, your insurance company’s adjuster will often disregard much of your contractor’s input as being self-serving … unless, of course, it serves the best interest of the insurance company to do otherwise. For instance, if your roofing contractor is willing to compromise and agree to the adjuster’s lower computer-generated estimate, the adjuster may then strike a deal with you based upon his agreement to work for the lesser amount. A roofing contractor’s opinions or arguments calling for more money or materials that differ from what the adjuster has already decided to pay, however, will likely be dismissed. As the governing regulations state, the contractor is not allowed to negotiate your claim.

A policyholder called me for assistance recently and told me that he had three different roofing contractors speak to his insurance company’s adjuster on his behalf, and all three told the adjuster that his roof required replacement. According to him – and to his dismay – the adjuster simply disregarded the arguments from all three of them and refused to pay him to replace his roof.

Of course, the policyholder was convinced that the adjuster was acting improperly and being unfair. He believed that his insurance company had a duty to accept these arguments, particularly since they came from three different contractors, as definitive proof of his loss, but he was wrong. What the policyholder’s three contractors actually presented to his adjuster were three different sales presentations for replacing his roof – none of which proved to the adjuster that the roof had been damaged by hail on the reported date of loss to the extent that it needed to be replaced.

Simply put, the insurance company’s adjuster was not convinced by the three different contractors, each of whom is in business to sell new roofing systems, that the home required a new roofing system as a direct result of the claimed hail event.

Sometimes, the overall condition of the roof may indeed require that the roof be replaced. The roofing contractor is doing his job by correctly informing the homeowner of that need and is certainly able to observe and communicate that to the insurance adjuster. The adjuster might even agree with him regarding the overall condition of the roof – however, what is required in most cases, to recover money from the insurance carrier to pay for the replacement of the roof, is physical proof that the reported damage is the only cause for that condition. It has been my observation that this is the point where many roof claims presented by roofing contractors, prohibited by law to negotiate the claim on behalf of a homeowner, fall short under those limitations.

Your consultation with a reputable roofing contractor or roofing expert is a key step as you begin to prepare to present your claim to your insurance company. If you know what to request from your roofing contractor so that you can acquire and present proof of your loss to your insurance company, you can present that proof to your adjuster who, under the state rules that govern insurance claims, must respond to you on the record to the proof that you present. This is what your licensed public adjuster would do on your behalf, as well.

There are a select few high-end roofing companies in Missouri that are staffed with experienced professionals who have proven to be able to acquire and provide convincing evidence that I have used to turn claims that were initially denied by the insurance company into recoveries of $80,000.00 to $925,000.00 – but the collected evidence was presented to the insurance company by me.

In the absence of such proof of loss or if the adjuster is simply not accepting the sales presentation from the roofing contractor as being definitive, the policyholder will likely be unsuccessful in his attempt to obtain more than what the adjuster initially values the loss to be – whether the adjuster is correct or not.

Since the roofing contractor does not officially represent the policyholder with his claim, the adjuster has the freedom to totally disregard anything that the contractor directly presents to him. Where the insurance company’s adjuster must respond to your written requests in writing, he can reject arguments presented by your roofing contractor without justification or explanation. In certain instances, the insurance adjuster will go as far as to ignore or refuse to communicate with the roofing contractor on site since there is no requirement for him to do so.

Keep this in mind when you decide to ask your roofing contractor to present your roofing claim to your insurance company. A “no” to your roofing contractor from your insurance adjuster is not always the final word.

 

 

 

This Blog/Web Site is made available by James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the work of a public adjuster, not to provide specific legal advice. The authors and/or site manager make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. By using this blog site you understand that there is no public adjuster/client relationship between you and James H. Bushart, Public Adjuster LLC.  The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state, nor should it be used as a substitute for competent maintenance or repair advice from a qualified contractor licensed to perform work in your state.

Public Adjusters Negotiate on Behalf of Policy Holders … Not Their Contractor

March 7, 2015 By in General Home Issues, Home Repairs, Property Insurance Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Public adjusters work for the policyholder. No one else.

I am a licensed public adjuster and all my business comes to me by way of my internet advertising and referrals.  I do not “chase fires and storms” or otherwise solicit policyholders who have suffered a loss to hire me.  A potential client (or the person referring them) must contact me, first.

Referrals come to me regularly from former clients, attorneys, insurance agents, and building contractors who recommend me to policyholders that they know, and that might benefit from my involvement with their insurance claim.

Some Missouri building contractors will attempt to negotiate with an insurance company on behalf of the owner of the property that they are repairing or rebuilding (when not prohibited by law) and will often find that the insurance company refuses to cooperate with them.  Instead of contracting to do work for less than what they need to make, or before using inferior products and labor and cut corners to afford to work for the insurance company’s lowball estimate, they advise the homeowner to hire a public adjuster for assistance.

I have received many referrals from building contractors and have assisted the policyholders that they referred to me with successfully reopening their claim and getting a fair settlement that covers the full cost of the project (as well as my fee) so that the contractor can receive his full pay to do quality work.  This is a win for the policyholder, a win for the contractor, and a win for an insurance company who operates in good faith.

Likewise, policyholders that I help will often ask me for advice or referrals when they have been paid and are ready to begin the work of restoring their home or business.  I will recommend many of the fine and reputable building contractors that I have come to know and admire, knowing that they will be satisfied with the results.

Sometimes I will get calls from contractors who are simply wanting me to aid them to increase their own level of profit, at the expense of the insurance company and the policyholder, by adding unnecessary work to the scope to increase the cost to the job and expect me to negotiate on THEIR behalf and convince the insurance company to pay it.  I don’t do that.

A recent case in point was a Missouri policyholder who was reluctant to hire a public adjuster but was pressured to contact me by his building contractor.  The contractor initially attempted to “represent” the policyholder in negotiating his contract with me and discussing the claim with me, but I refused and communicated directly with the policyholder.  This is the only way I do business.

As I investigated the claim, I found that the insurance company had inspected the hail-damaged roof and siding with the contractor’s estimator and had agreed to pay what the estimator had originally estimated the costs to be.  Then, for reasons not clearly explained, the owner of the construction company revised his estimator’s original estimate and added a large amount of money for something outside the normal scope of work, and the insurance company refused to pay for this additional cost.

My job, according to the building contractor who pressured the policyholder to hire me, was to get the homeowner this extra sum for this unnecessary work so that he could pay it to the contractor.  I refused to do this and advised the policyholder that the insurance company had offered a fair settlement that matched the original estimate provided by his contractor, and that I was withdrawing from his claim.

An insurance claim is a matter that is between the policyholder and his insurance company, and the only acceptable resolution to an insurance claim is a complete restoration of the insured property to the condition that it was immediately before the event that caused the loss.  The policyholder hires the contractor to perform the work to meet that level of restoration and the insurance company has a duty to pay the costs associated with that level of restoration.  Nothing more … nothing less.

I appreciate the many referrals that I receive from building contractors who are looking to help policyholders achieve fair settlements so that they can be paid in full for their valuable services; however, when the policyholder and I agree to work together on his claim, I represent the policyholder, only.

Home destroyed by fire.

Engineered Wood Flooring

January 3, 2013 By in Home Repairs Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Engineered wood flooring is an alternative to solid hardwood flooring made entirely out of real wood.  It’s currently the most popular type of flooring in the world.  North America is the only area left where traditional, solid wood floors still outnumber engineered floors, but engineered wood flooring is quickly catching up, with the rate of use for new builds, as well as remodels, increasing steadily every year for the past few decades.  Inspectors and homeowners alike may be interested in how this product is manufactured and installed, and what its advantages are compared to older, more traditional forms of flooring.

Brief History

The beginnings of mass-produced wood flooring can be dated as far back as 1903, when an E. L. Roberts mail-order catalog offered “wood carpeting.”  This flooring consisted of 1½ x 5/16-inch wooden strips that were glued to heavy canvas that was then installed by tacking it down with brads.  The wood was then sanded and finished.  The varnishes used were usually slow-curing tung oils from China.  These were not durable in themselves, so the floors were hot-waxed and buffed to a shine with a floor brush.

Early examples of the “wood carpet” eventually evolved into more modern iterations, such as laminate flooring, which consists of melamine-infused paper as its upper layer, and wood-chip composite beneath.  Laminate flooring typically features a printed or embossed top layer meant to approximate the look of real hardwood.

The current incarnation of engineered wood flooring has been available since the 1960s, and has steadily increased in quality, leading to improved advantages over traditional hardwood flooring.

Composition

Engineered wood flooring is most commonly made with a plywood-core substrate and a real hardwood veneer or skin, which comes pre-finished from the factory.  The top veneer, which looks just like the top of a traditional solid wood plank, is called the lamella. 

Some engineered flooring utilizes a finger-core construction, with a substrate comprised of small pieces of milled timber running perpendicular to the lamella.  This can be made with an additional layer of plywood running parallel to the lamella, which gives it added stability.  Fiberboard-core flooring is also available, but it’s generally considered to be an inferior option.

Engineered wood flooring is meant to be indistinguishable from traditional hardwood floor once it’s installed, and only the lamella is visible.  The lamella veneers available are made from nearly every type of common wood, as well as many more exotic ones, in order to provide the same variety of aesthetics typical of quality hardwood floors.  The substrate that the veneer is attached to is just as strong and durable as hardwood — if not stronger — and the finish applied at the factory often outlasts one applied on-site to solid wood flooring.  Even surface effects are available that can be applied to the finish to give the flooring a time-worn look, such as light distressing.

Engineered flooring runs the gamut from the low end, starting at $3 per square foot, to the high, at $14 and more. To judge quality, check the thickness of the lamella, the number of layers in the substrate, and the number of finish coats.  Typically, the more layers, the better. Listed below are descriptions of the advantages of adding layers to the construction in the common classes of engineered boards:

  • 3-ply construction: 1- to 2-mm wear layer; five finish coats; 10- to 15-year warranty; 1⁄4-inch thick; current price is about $3 to $5 per square foot.  Options for lamella veneer are limited to common species, such as oak and ash, and just a few stains are available;
  • 5-ply construction: 2- to 3-mm wear layer; seven finish coats; 15- to 25-year warranty; 1⁄4-inch thick; about $6 to $9 per square foot.  More species, such as cherry, beech, and some exotics are available for lamella, as well as all stains, and a few surface effects, such as distressing; and
  • 7-ply or more: 3+-mm wear layer, which can be sanded two or more times; nine finish coats; 25+-year warranty; 5/8- to 3⁄4-inch thick; average price is about $10 to $14 per square foot.  The widest selection of species is available for lamella, including reclaimed options.  More surface treatments are also available, such as hand-scraped and wire-brushed.

The cost of engineered flooring can be around 20% more than that of traditional flooring, but the difference can be offset or recouped by saving on installation, staining and sealing.

Installation

Installation of engineered wood flooring is generally quite simple compared to the installation of traditional hardwood, and can often be accomplished by a homeowner without the help of a professional flooring contractor.  If the services of a professional are enlisted, the job can be done more quickly and cost-effectively than if solid hardwood were to be installed.  Engineered flooring can be fastened in place with screws or nails, glued down, or left to “float,” relying on its mass to hold it in place.  Listed below are several installation methods:

  • A bead of glue can be applied to the tongue of each board, which is then tapped into place with a block. The floor floats, unattached to the sub-floor except by force of gravity.
  • A floor stapler and compressor can be used to rapidly secure the boards to the existing floor, without having to deal with any glue.
  • Boards can be laid in a bed of adhesive, as is done with tile.  This approach works particularly well over cured concrete, which precludes the use of staples.
  • Some types of engineered floor are designed with milled tongues and grooves that lock together without glue or fasteners. It’s the quickest and cleanest installation method.

Advantages of Engineered Flooring

While solid hardwood is a great traditional building material that provides aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound flooring, it does have its limitations.  For example, it cannot be installed directly on concrete or below grade, such as in basements.  It is generally limited in plank width and is more prone to gapping, which is excessive space between planks, and cupping, which is a concave or “dished” appearance of the plank, with the height of the plank along its longer edges being higher than the center with increased plank size.  Solid hardwood also cannot be used where radiant-floor heating is in place.
Engineered wood flooring, on the other hand, can actually provide some distinct advantages over traditional hardwood in many instances and applications.  Some of these include:
  • Lamella veneer is available in dozens of wood species.
  • Surface effects can be applied to further enhance its appearance.
  • The factory finish can outlast site-applied finish on solid hardwoods.
  • Drying time for the finish is eliminated because it’s pre-applied at the factory.
  • It can be used in basements and over concrete slabs.
  • Installation is quick and easy.
  • It can be used over radiant-heat systems.
  • It can be refinished to repair normal wear and tear.
  • The core layer can expand and contract more freely without warping.
  • The flooring can be removed and re-installed elsewhere, if desired.
Engineered wood flooring is increasingly the first choice for floor installations, and its advantages, in many circumstances, can be exceptional.  Homeowners with a little DIY experience can usually install it themselves.
by Nick Gromicko and Ethan Ward

Anti-Scald Valves

December 27, 2012 By in Health and Safety, Home Repairs Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

Anti-scald valves, also known as tempering valves and mixing valves, mix cold water in with outgoing hot water so that the hot water that leaves a fixture is not hot enough to scald a person.

Facts and Figures

  • Scalds account for 20% of all burns.
  • More than 2,000 American children are scalded each year, mostly in the bathroom and kitchen.
  • Scalding and other types of burns require costly and expensive hospital stays, often involving skin grafts and plastic surgery.
  • Scalding may lead to additional injuries, such as falls and heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
  • Water that is 160º F can cause scalding in 0.5 seconds.

Unwanted temperature fluctuations are an annoyance and a safety hazard. When a toilet is flushed, for instance, cold water flows into the toilet’s tank and lowers the pressure in the cold-water pipes. If someone is taking a shower, they will suddenly feel the water become hotter as less cold water is available to the shower valve. By the same principle, the shower water will become colder when someone in the house uses the hot-water faucet. This condition is exacerbated by plumbing that’s clogged, narrow, or installed in showers equipped with low-flow or multiple showerheads. A sudden burst of hot water can cause serious burns, particularly in young children, who have thinner skin than adults. Also, a startling thermal shock – hot or cold – may cause a person to fall in the shower as he or she scrambles on the slippery surface to adjust the water temperature. The elderly and physically challenged are at particular risk.

Anti-scald valves mitigate this danger by maintaining water temperature at a safe level, even as pressures fluctuate in water supply lines. They look similar to ordinary shower and tub valves and are equipped with a special diaphragm or piston mechanism that immediately balances the pressure of the hot- and cold-water inputs, limiting one or the other to keep the temperature within a range of several degrees. As a side effect, the use of an anti-scald valve increases the amount of available hot water, as it is drawn more slowly from the water heater. Inspectors and homeowners may want to check with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) to see if these safety measures are required in new construction in their area.

Installation of anti-scald valves is typically simple and inexpensive. Most models are installed in the hot-water line and require a cold-water feed. They also require a swing check valve on the cold-water feed line to prevent hot water from entering the cold-water system. They may be installed at the water heater to safeguard the plumbing for the whole building, or only at specific fixtures.

The actual temperature of the water that comes out of the fixture may be somewhat different than the target temperature set on the anti-scald valve. Such irregularities may be due to long, uninsulated plumbing lines or defects in the valve itself. Users may fine-tune the valve with a rotating mechanism that will allow the water to become hotter or colder, depending on which way it’s turned. Homeowners may contact a qualified plumber if they have further questions or concerns.

In summary, anti-scald valves are used to reduce water temperature fluctuations that may otherwise inconvenience or harm unsuspecting building occupants.

by Nick Gromicko and Rob London

%%footer%%