Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-1982 Letter, Fire InvestigationBroeker, Hartfeldt, Hedges & Grant ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. BROCKER WILL HARTTELOT STEVEN R. HEDGES DAVID A. GRANT STEVE M. MIHALCHICA BARBARA J. BLUMER BECKY A. COMSTOCK EILEEN M. ROBERTS TERRI A.HACCMCYER SCOTT O. HARRIS JAMES W.INOISON 2650 METRO DRIVE-SUITE 600 MINNEAPOLIS (BLOOMINGTON) MINNESOTA 55420 TEL.{QI2) BSA-5203 JAMES WILSON PLAZA,SUITE L-I06 131 W. WILSON STREET MADISON, WISCONSIN 53703 TEL.(BOB) 2SS^2ieO WISCONSIN OFFICE KATHRYN M,COLLINS* • ADMITTED IN VMISCONSIN REPLY TO Minnesota ornoE ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN MINNESOTA February 23, 1982 Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs Building Inspector City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Fire Damage at 1290 Arbor Street, November 25, 1980 Owners and Occupants: Bob and Meda Carlson Dear Mr. Jacobs: This letter sets forth my understanding of our telephone conference this date concerning the cibove-referenced fire. As explained to you, our law firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Carlson in their claim against Bermel-Smaby Realty, Inc., which sold the Arbor Street residence to the Carlsons in the fall of 1980. On November 25, 1980, a fire occurred at the Carlson residence located at 1290 Arbor Street in Crystal Bay, ^linnesota. You were advised of the fire sometime during the following week, and made your first visit to the Carlson residence on December 1, 1980. You were advised of the fire by Mr. Carlson as well as by police reports of tlie incident. Reports from the police department of such events are routinely forwarded to your office. In your opinion, the fire at the Carlson residence resulted from a defective installation of the wood burning stove located on the first floor. It is difficult for you to determine whether a contractor or the home owner prior to Carlsons installed the stove, because by the time you visited the scene much of the repair work necessitated by the fire was under way. A wood burning stove such Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs February 23, 1982 Page -2- as the one in the Carlsons' home should have been installed with a minimum 36-inch clearance between it and surrounding combustibles, including the wall behind the stove. That wall was a stud wall with sheet rock overlay. Had the wall been asbestos with a one-inch air space behind it, the clearance between the stove and combustibles could have been reduced to 18 inches. Other installation options could have reduced the required minimum clearance to 12 inches. The installer of the stove did not employ any of those options, nor did he/she observe the 36 inch minimum clearance requirement. Instead, the stove was installed so close to the back wall that the circulating fan on the stove was actually cut into the wall. That is, a portion of the sheet rock had been cut out of the rear wall to permit the fan blade to rotate freely. Another problem with the stove installation was the manner in which the chimney was put in place. Had the chimney been installed according to the manufacturer's instructions, there would have been a 2-inch minimum clearance between the chimney stack and surrounding materials. As it was, however, the floor joists on both the first and second floor, as well as the insulation between the joists on both levels, fell within the 2-inch clearemce zone. When I asked you why the previous owner did not have fire damage of the type Carlsons experienced, you stated the previous owner was probably ve^ lucky, and that he/she apparently did not use the stove as a primary source of heat for the residence, as Carlsons did. You explained that before fire damage of the type Carlsons experienced can occur, the fire from the stove must "super heat" the wood and sheet rock wall behind the stove, thereby drying out those construction materials. Those materials will not catch fire, typically, unless all moisture is removed from them by the high heat given off by the stove. Once the wall and insulation were super heated, fire followed as a matter of course. When I asked you how the previous home owner should have proceeded with the stove installation, you replied that he/she should have visited your office and picked up a permit for stove installation. No construction license is required by the City of Orono for that type of work, but the City does inspect such construction prior to it being put into use. That is the purpose of the permitting process; To inform the City of ongoing construction, so that it may monitor the correctness of the installation. I asked you if your office, at the time of issuing a permit, reviewed construction plans and specifications for proposed construction. You replied no, and stated you typically require persons wishing to install a stove to install a "listed" one (i.e., one which has been tested and approved Mr. Thomas J. Jacobs February 23, 1982 Page -3- by Underwriters Laboratories, the International Conference of Building Officials or even, in some cases, the State of Maine). When you are advised of the type of stove someone plans to install, you look up the testing laboratory or manufacturer's instructions as to how the product should be installed, and discuss those instructions with the permit applicant. When construction is complete, you ask to be so informed, and then you visit the site of the construction and inspect the work. If everything is in order, you approve the installation and it may then become operational. When you visited the Carlson residence on December 1, 1980, you "red tagged" the stove installation, which means the stove could not be used until it was properly installed. As you recall, Mr. Carlson hired Minnesota Fireplace to reinstall the stove. As part of that reinstallation, to the best of your recollection, the hearth had to be enlarged, because the stove was moved a considerable distance away from the wall. You reinspected the stove installation on January 24, 1981, and at that time removed the red tag because you found everything in order. You stated there was a smoke smell in the house when you visited it on January 24, 1981, which is a typical result from fires of this type. I asked you if you believe the Carlson residence sustained peznnanent damage as a result of the fire, and you stated no, inasmuch as all of the damaged material (studs, etc.) have been repaired or replaced. You have been the Orono building inspector for some five years, and are certified as a Building Official by the State of Minnesota. Prior to your employment by the City, you worked construction and were in school, studying architectural drafting at the Mnneapolis Area Vocational Technical Institute and at North Hennepin Community College. Thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this matter with me in our telephone conference today. Please review this letter carefully, and contact me at the telephone number indicated cibove if you see any point that could be stated more clearly or that should be corrected. I understand you will mail me a photocopy of the inspection report contained in your file on the Carlson fire. Enclosed with this letter is a photocopy of your correspondence to Bob Carlson dated January 16, 1981. Again, our sincere thanks for your cooperation. Very truly yours, BROEKER, HARTFELDT, HEDGES & GRANT EMR:jlh Enclosure cc: Bob and Meda Carlson Mr. Alex G. Uhler