# Trusses exposed to fire



## Inspector 102 (Jan 29, 2010)

A ranch style home had a fire that extended into the attic space. The first 7 trusses were burned completed in two with heat throughout the attic space. It is my opinion that the extent of heat trapped in the attic space may have cause truss plate connection failure and will require complete replacement. The insurance company only wants to replace 3/4 of the trusses and reuse the remaining. I feel that an engineer report to reuse the trusses is in order based on the "possible" failure of truss plates. Any advise or case reports supporting my thought would be appreciated.


----------



## Mule (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

We always say that if there is any charcoal on any part of a truss........replace it. Smoke damage..........okay.


----------



## docgj (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Short answer.

I would require an engineer report. Way to many unknowns with a fire.

docgj


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Been there, done that. Engineer report indicating that structural integrity of trusses has not been compromised by heat generated by the fire required.


----------



## FredK (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Alway get an engineer's report when that happens here.

Insurance companies got that in the budget and always want to save $$$.  Me I want a safe structure when it's done.


----------



## mn joe (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

I always require a report from the truss company or an independent engineer.Don't let the insurance company dictate the terms here.YOU make the final decision.Make them prove otherwise!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

What's your normal process for uncondemning buildings?

Requiring an Engineer's report for CO is an option.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 29, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

YOU are the AHJ.... for sure require an engineers report buying off on the structure. Insurance companies are in business to make money, they don't want to spend it. But,  in a nice shift, you are in the "drivers" seat (haha), hold them accountable.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Thanks for the comments. I have placed the homeowner and insurance company on notice of my stance on the truss replacement. I will see how it pans out. I won't accept anything other than a report or new trusses. Hope the insurance company makes the adjustment on the claim, but I told the owner that once I made the call, they get replaced regardless of who ends up paying for them.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

I don't see how the insurance company got it's foot in the door here.  We have enough problems with enforcing the building codes, with the NAHB having influence on code development and political pressure on local government officials.

Ya'll, please don't start allowing insurance companies; their investigators, adjusters, "Insurance Company Engineers", etc. to influence the Building Safety Department of the AHJs.

Don't accept Insurance Company's reports, answer their questions, or communcate with them in any form or fashion.  Don't answer questions about insurance reports or determinations from homeowners.

Please,

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Agree with Fatboy! It seems to be a growing problem with insurance companies not wanting to pay for things that need to be in compliance with the code. Have an engineers report!


----------



## JBI (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

There is enough evidence that metal plate connected trusses can fail _without_ fire exposure to warrant a _reasonable_ measure to ensure the viability of the remaining members.

I managed to convince an insurer (once) that an entire building was compromised due to a fire. The building was concrete block walls and metal bar joist trusses on top. I told them that due to the heat exposure an Engineers' report would be required to re-use the existing trusses.

They must've done a CBA and determined it was cheaper to replace them.


----------



## Mule (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

I agree with everybody but myself!


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

Inspector 102,

"Not so fast my friend" as Lee Corso sez!

Not knowing the total damage of the trusses or structure you might want to check with your Cities Muni-code and State Insurance Department, they may have your municipality on a list to do a insurance proceeds hold back on the property if it had insurance, and there is an insurance claim on the building. Our City is on the list and we require the insurance company to hold back 25% of the claim, send us a check that is deposited in a special city account with the funds and any interest being returned to the property owner after the building issue is abated.

This prevents the owner from skipping town with all the insurance monies and leaving the city with the remaining building structure to dispose of.

I agree with the other posters that an engineer's report on the trusses would be in order.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

I have had no conversation with the insurance agent, only the home owner telling me they will not cover the additional trusses. I simply wrote a statement to the homeowner and insurance company that I would not accept the trusses without report or replace them. Pcinspector1, I wish our community had something like that to put teeth into enforcement. Our legal counsel is afraid of litigation and I can't convience them to get a new one. Thanks for all the comments.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire



			
				Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the comments. I have placed the homeowner and insurance company on notice of my stance on the truss replacement. I will see how it pans out. I won't accept anything other than a report or new trusses. Hope the insurance company makes the adjustment on the claim, but I told the owner that once I made the call, they get replaced regardless of who ends up paying for them.


I agree with your stance.

However, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if the engineer's report is a condition of permit or a condition of CO.


----------



## pwood (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

102,

  what did you make them do with the wiring and plumbing that went from the attic into the walls?


----------



## PhoenixBob (Feb 1, 2010)

Re: Trusses exposed to fire

If the truss is alligatored (charred) then it needs replaced. If there is only smoke damage to the rest of the trusses unless you notice that the gussets are affected then leave them alone. I have seen alot of fire damage roofs and have not had an engineer require replacement of all the trusses.


----------

