An insurance company will not renew a homeowner's policy without the over 30 year old breaker panel being changed. This interior panel is located in a closet and has no main breaker protection. The contractor asked if he installs a new panel and is able to turn the panel into the hallway is he still required the install a main breaker and replace the 3 wire feed with 4 wire. There is no attic space and will require drywall cutting and patching to accomplish this wire replacement. We seem to have different opinions in the City of Tampa on the answer to the contractor's question. I say he must install a main breaker and replace the 3 wire cable with 4 wire. The others that since the homeowner is being forced to change the panel (not an upgrade) we should not require this existing condition to be brought to today's code. I have asked some other area inspectors this question and all 4 of them agree with me. So I am posting the question on this forum so I can get some other opinions.

Neal Burdick
City of Tampa
Construction Inspector II

Neal, of course it is a service upgrade. The homeowner is upgrading the equipment. Altering that service in any way is an upgrade. You are correct, it must be done according to the 2008 NEC. It is not a repair, or whatever else those bleeding heart, liberal code enforcement people in your office are stating.

The NEC is non-biased. It treats everyone the same. It does not take into account the reason why he had to make the change. You touch it, move it, flip it, you buy the farm. One must install it to today's codes, not codes from 30 years ago.

I know this example has been allowed in the past to continue to be a three wire per AHJ.
And it is a hardship to the owner.
But code is code.
Besides as a AHJ you have the right to interpret the nec.
But I also see it as a problem in the future.
Dealing with this contractor and others on the next job.



Even if it really is not the same situation.

So it may not be a popular decision to strictly adhere to the code but it is the correct and consistent one.

HINT: I don't remember the person prior in your seat allowing it either.

The irony here is that the point of the insurance company wanting the upgrade, is to bring it up to code.

Thinking about this some more.
It is a shame that the insurance industry is taking control of our lives.
I am surprised that they did not require all of the devices to be replaced also.
That could very probably add up to a much higher cost than the panel. After you start adding gfci and arc fault protection to a home that was not wired for the same consideration.

I agree also, bring it up to code. It is a shame that the insurance company requires this to renue a policy when although old, it is still in good condition. Just because it is old, that doesn't make it bad.

Stick to your guns Neal!

I agree with Nick that we cannot base our enforcement on why work is being performed, but rather on what is being performed.

I see this issue occuring with insuarnce all the time. An insurance company is an AHJ in one respect. It's definetely something the public has little knowledge of. When they buy an older home, they need to expect upgrades and renovations may be required in order to satisfy a host of authorities.

Neal; I also agree, bring it up to code, just too bad that the Insurance Co dosen't offer him a sizable discount for the upgrade

Do any of you think the Existing Building Code would come into play on this subject?

no