This is unfortunate for the restaurant, and I know they are not the only restaurant that is in violation or has not had there fire
suppression system updated.
They had ample warning, apparently verbal and written, and stil chose not to spend $3,250 to upgrade. This is a good judgement. About time we see some of these for a change.
Paul — you’re right. However, UL 300’s been around since 1994. We can’t loss control every restaurant in America, and dry chemical is just not effective controlling vegetable oil fryer fires. I stll see ’em, and recommend they be replaced ASAP. But now I’ve got some bite to go with my bark!
Excellence precedence – hope it goes to the Supreme’s so we can all enjoy this good guy win!
The prior carrier had non-renewed due to the obsolete system, Firemans wrote coverage, apparently never inspected or made recommendations, took the premium for 4 years. Seems pretty sloppy. Even if the app fraudulently omitted the reason for non-renewal, Firemans should have addressed this at inception.
Why wasn’t a violation notice issued by the local fire inspector during an annual inspection? Thank God for insurance companies. They are doing our job for us!
Some areas still do not have enforcement powers…. we can notify and write up violations but have to turn the non-complaince orders to other agencies for enforcement —- Thye enforcmeent is selective as to who you are and what you are….
Guy brings up a great point. How many times have any of us arrived at our customers workplace and made a code recommendation from the NFPA only to have the customer tell you “the fire department was just here and they didn’t say anything about that.” It’s too bad we don’t always have support from the people who actually enforce the codes we are required to know for our certification! This particular case is one where the fire inspector’s diligence could have prevented it from coming into play.
There is no duty to inspect — and we’ll never know if that wonderful question in the Acord on prior cancellation or non-renewals was marked YES. The key is the owner’s clear knowledge of the issue with the system, and conscious decision to take no action. Bottom line, morale risk.
I can’t see how the restaurant could not have complied with Mass code. The policy follows code as well. The operator continued to operate even after the building inspector could not issue an inspection certificate. The restaurant should have been shut down.
One for the good guys!!
This is unfortunate for the restaurant, and I know they are not the only restaurant that is in violation or has not had there fire
suppression system updated.
They had ample warning, apparently verbal and written, and stil chose not to spend $3,250 to upgrade. This is a good judgement. About time we see some of these for a change.
Paul — you’re right. However, UL 300’s been around since 1994. We can’t loss control every restaurant in America, and dry chemical is just not effective controlling vegetable oil fryer fires. I stll see ’em, and recommend they be replaced ASAP. But now I’ve got some bite to go with my bark!
Excellence precedence – hope it goes to the Supreme’s so we can all enjoy this good guy win!
The prior carrier had non-renewed due to the obsolete system, Firemans wrote coverage, apparently never inspected or made recommendations, took the premium for 4 years. Seems pretty sloppy. Even if the app fraudulently omitted the reason for non-renewal, Firemans should have addressed this at inception.
Why wasn’t a violation notice issued by the local fire inspector during an annual inspection? Thank God for insurance companies. They are doing our job for us!
Some areas still do not have enforcement powers…. we can notify and write up violations but have to turn the non-complaince orders to other agencies for enforcement —- Thye enforcmeent is selective as to who you are and what you are….
Good stuff, Tony.
Thank for sharing!
Best Regards,
JDF
Guy brings up a great point. How many times have any of us arrived at our customers workplace and made a code recommendation from the NFPA only to have the customer tell you “the fire department was just here and they didn’t say anything about that.” It’s too bad we don’t always have support from the people who actually enforce the codes we are required to know for our certification! This particular case is one where the fire inspector’s diligence could have prevented it from coming into play.
Why was the state allowing the insurance company to collect the premiums?
There is no duty to inspect — and we’ll never know if that wonderful question in the Acord on prior cancellation or non-renewals was marked YES. The key is the owner’s clear knowledge of the issue with the system, and conscious decision to take no action. Bottom line, morale risk.
I can’t see how the restaurant could not have complied with Mass code. The policy follows code as well. The operator continued to operate even after the building inspector could not issue an inspection certificate. The restaurant should have been shut down.