www.FireDoorInspector.org

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Rolling overhead fire doors have been used by architects in buildings to provide separations from one building to the other when attached and to separate compartments when necessary.
Roll-down doors are extremely heavy and are typically unstoppable when the release mechanism is released. Currently, the potential threat of rolling fire doors outweighs any potential benefit they might offer. When activated during a fire or testing, doors carry a huge potential for injury. Could also trap people due to its closure creating a dead end corridor.

If a fire-rated door is not required at a location, the overhead rolling door should be secured or removed.

If a fire-rated door is required, the door should be removed completely and replaced with properly rated swinging doors. If the overhead doors cannot be immediately eliminated, the rolling doors shall be checked to insure they are being maintained properly and plans should be made to replace the doors.

[Marc D. Shunk]

I often see the rolling overhead fire doors in fire walls every so often in very large manufacturing plants. They are never closed, and only exist to slam shut if there is a fire. Traditionally, they have a "man door" right next to them, because if they ever did shut during a fire, it would take a man, a boy, and a 4-mule team to raise (or slide) them. This is why there's normally a fire rated man door next to each one.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

I often see the rolling overhead fire doors in fire walls every so often in very large manufacturing plants. They are never closed, and only exist to slam shut if there is a fire. Traditionally, they have a "man door" right next to them, because if they ever did shut during a fire, it would take a man, a boy, and a 4-mule team to raise (or slide) them. This is why there's normally a fire rated man door next to each one.

You are correct Marc, and the only way around this would be to have the most current Fire Door operator to eliminate the issue.

You can watch the video here;

http://www.cornelliron.com/m100wmvhi.html

As you can see, there is a man door in the video also.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mcyr

I wonder if some would know what to do on a drop test with older model roll up doors?

Is the drop test not part of the fire door Inspection to make sure that it will perform as designed in case of fire?

Testing and inspectiong are two different things.

We rarely test inspected welds for instance.

[Marc D. Shunk]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Testing and inspectiong are two different things.

We rarely test inspected welds for instance.

Crazy talk.
How do you inspect it if you don't test it? You flip on lights in a house, run the water, etc. This is no different.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

Crazy talk.
How do you inspect it if you don't test it? You flip on lights in a house, run the water, etc. This is no different.

So now I am a Home Tester? Can't wait to test those hurricane straps. Interesting.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Testing and inspectiong are two different things.

We rarely test inspected welds for instance.

Inspecting Fire Doors should also include the requirements of NFPA 80 No?
Now, I believe we have to make sure that all the components of the Fire Door are functional for the intended purpose No?

Well, maybe we are back to what Joe Farsetta was saying in the earlier post.

[Marc D. Shunk]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

So now I am a Home Tester? Can't wait to test those hurricane straps. Interesting.

Now you're trying to act like you don't test anything. Crazy.

[Joe Farsetta]

Mark,

Normally your posts are quite insightful. This time, unfortunately, you are so far off the mark it aint funny.

Not being a HI, I can understand your rather simplistic view of the problem. Try and picture you performing some service you are not insured for, and having it go terribly wrong.

As inspectors, we rely on E&O insurance for indemnification. A question arises with these policies having to do with gross negligence and/or willful misconduct. To help frame the limits of the policies, the carriers rely on generally accepted definitions or what is, and what is not included in a property inspection.

And therein lies the biggest problem. This activity aint covered. Anyone with E&O already knows the cost of riders for recognized ancillary services, sucb as WDI, radon, and mold testing. ZThe riders are specific and costly. Absent of this additional coverage, there simply is no indemnification.

Please tell me where I can purchase coverage for a fire door nspection.

You also mention return on new services performed. I agree. But with this latest "inspection", one must understand the financial liability when weighing any potential return on investment.

While there are certainly those amnong us, such as Marcel, who have the commercial construction background to recognize much of this, many do not.

I fall back to the advice given by a NY State buildng code official, our local fire inspector (fire marshall), and a representative of the insurance carrier.

The potential risk far outweighs any potential reward, IMO.

And, Marcel brings up very interesting points in his assessment of drop testing, after which you mention how would one inspect witholut performing such a test.

You are both correct, which brings us right back to my point.

So tell me: What is the inspction of a fire door worth?

As to the inspection of fire extinguishers, you are correct in that there are companies that do this. Typically, they sell, service, and install fire safety equipment. My question is why would a prperty inspector ever consider this as an ancillary service. Money?

Right...

[Marc D. Shunk]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

As insp[ectors, we rely on E&O insurance for indemnification.

So get the right insurance is quit worrying so much.

[Joe Farsetta]

Mark,

Please remove your head from your posterior. There aint no such insurance for us. And that's the point.

[Marc D. Shunk]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Mark,

Please remove your head from your posterior. There aint no such insurance for us. And that's the point.

Anybody can get insurance for anything. The cost of that insurance may make the intended new area of business less appealing, but I'm not going to let anyone pretend like there's not insurance for stuff like this. If I can get insurance to wire a home or business and install alarms, a fire extinguisher guy apparently has a GL policy, certainly you can get insurance for the inspection of fire doors, which may necessarily involve some testing.

[James H. Bushart]

The whole idea behind the invention of this, by Nick, as an ancillary service is to attract new recruits to NACHI, provide the need for another NACHI training film, and to appease other new members who have yet to find themselves sustaining themselves as "inspectors".

The SOP is to provide confidence to those who take the course. Everything is in order...or so its seems.

The warning that some of us are putting out to those too new to the business to know any better is that...there is a reason that your city and state provides ordinances and laws that hold your Fire Marshall and other AHJs harmless and free from the possibility of civil suits arriving from their inspection of firedoors and other things. If insurance against wrongful death suits was affordable and obtainable this would not be the case.

Ancillary services do not provide the majority of inspectors with sufficient income, by themselves. Their purpose is to open the doors for home inspectors to sell home inspections to those who may have occassional use for these ancillary services. Thus, it is imprudent and impractical to take on an ancillary service that will cost more in liability protection that it could ever hope to earn.

Do yourself this favor....talk to the fire marshal in your area and tell him what you are wanting to do if you would like to provide this service. Tell him what you plan to test and how you plan to test and inspect it. Ask him for his advice and go from there.

Don't allow a sales gimmick to cost you your livelihood.

[Nick Gromicko]

The decision to offer this service has nothing to do with "sales gimmicks" or "AHJ's being held harmless" or "insurance availability" or any of that.

It has to do with Business 101.

There is a cost in performing these inspections and part of that cost is liability. Now even though the chances of a fire door inspector being held responsible for life or property damage caused by a fire that spread through a fire door that he inspected in the past... is very small... Joe Farsetta is correct in recognizing that there is some 1 in a million chance it could happen and so that liability is part of the cost of performing these inspections.

Now having said that... the decision, as I explained earlier, has little to do with personal opinion, and everything to do with a simple business formula:

If the cost of providing the service (including the cost of marketing it, cost of driving there, cost of training, and yes... cost of liability) is less than what you can charge to provide it... do it! If the cost is more... don't do it! It is a simple formula.

Insurance is nothing more than a method to manage this liability. It is simply a way that a bunch of people who offer a particular service... spread out their liabilty amongst themselves, thus making the cost of the liability a known quantity. That known quantity is exactly your insurance premium divided by the number of inspections performed. Another simple formula.

Any post regarding the wisdom of offering this service that contains more letters than numbers... is being made by a non-businessman, IMHO.

Aside from ethical dilemas, in nearly every business decision in my life, I never, ever, think. I don't need to ever think. I have a 2 dollar calculator that I got in a cereal box once.

[Joe Farsetta]

Nick,

I spoke to three separate entities, each with knowledge in this specific area.

1 - Local fire inspector/fire marshall

The opinion of this professional who is chartered wth life/safety issues specific to fire believes that this is a reckless journey into an area where the liability is so incredibly high as to scare anyone with a brain far away from this activity.

2 - NY State Building Code Inspector

The opinion of this professional is that, in the event of a trial where the AHJ is called upon by a plaintiff to provide expert testimony, the AHJ will state for the record that only the AJH can and should inspect any fire door assembly for installation and functionality. Theirs is the sole opinion which counts.

3 - E&O Carrier

Fire door inspections are specifically excluded from covered activities of inspectors, due to the fact that they are clearly beyond the scope of the inspection. The potential for liability is so great, and includes operating defects including pinch points (etc) as to likely exceed policy limits (even if covered). This person was dumbfounded as to why in the world any inspector would take this liability on. He was the 3rd professional with the same opinion.

Yes, it is a business decision, but I believe that as a trade association, it is our obligation to inform as well as "educate". So it is with this "opportunity" to increase revenue for an inspector. Do the benefits outweigh the risk? For that matter, how does one calculate the ROI versus potential for disaster?

We cant just look at the upside. There are legal, ethical, financial, and moral questions regarding these activities. All sides need to be examined.

And, we as an association are duty-bound to our members to do this.

As to insurance coverage, who offers it relative to our specific industry and what does it cost? In your post, you mention insurance as a cost factor, and spreading out that cost. What company has a rider for this stuff for E&O policies?