This content is restricted to PLRB members. Please Log in or Register to access it.
Log in or RegisterThis content is restricted to PLRB members. Please Log in or Register to access it.
Log in or RegisterElevation Change in Hallway of Restaurant in Anytown, KY
QUESTION: Does the building code regulate a height difference of approximately 4” in an interior walkway of a commercial property utilized as a restaurant in Anytown, Kentucky where a claimant had a trip and fall incident? RESPONSE: Yes. Kentucky adopted the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), with amendments, as the statewide uniform building code known as the 2018 Kentucky Building Code (KBC), as well as the International Fire Code (IFC) as referenced in the IBC. The IBC defines “Means of Egress” as “[a] continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way….” The KBC requires a means of egress to be maintained in accordance with the IFC. Both the IBC and IFC provide requirements that the floor surface of a means of egress be “slip-resistant” and “securely attached” and that the capacity of a means of egress system “not be diminished along the path of egress travel.” Further, the IBC requires “accessible routes” follow several additional maintenance requirements set forth by the KBC and accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the KBC. Of particular note, this would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. There also is a voluntary standard published by ASTM International that allows for variances up to ¼”, beveling the edge between ¼” and ½”, and further remediation for a change in elevation over ½”. However, this has not been adopted and is not mandated. In any event, this standard could, and has, been argued in other jurisdictions as relevant to determining negligence in court, but is not a part of any applicable code or regulation. FACTS: The insured is the landlord for a restaurant in Bardwell, Kentucky. An interior hallway of the building has an approximately 4” step or change in elevation. The kick plate has what appears to be flaking yellow tape that matches the painted portions of a frame at the elevation change and the top half of the walls. There is no floor marking in the opposite direction of traffic and no handrails are present. DISCUSSION: Applicable Code Kentucky adopted the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), with amendments, as the statewide uniform building code known as the 2018 Kentucky Building Code (KBC) and part of the Uniform State Building Code. KRS § 198B.050 (authority for Department of Housing, Building, and Construction (DHBC) to adopt uniform state building code); 815 Ky. Admin. Regs. 7:120 § 5 (adopted); 2018 KBC, Third Edition (August 2022) (DHBC site PDF); 2015 IBC (ICC site HTML). No appendices of the IBC were adopted. Kentucky adopted the International Existing Building Code in Section 3401.1 of the KBC, except as provided by Sections 3401.2 through 3401.8 of the KBC. 2018 KBC § 3401.1 (DHBC site PDF). Kentucky also adopted the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) for new construction projects, when specifically referenced in the KBC. DHBC Codes Currently Adopted by Kentucky. The DHBC describes the Uniform State Building Code as a “mini/maxi” code, meaning that it is a statewide uniform building code and no local government May adopt or enforce any other building code governing commercial construction. 2018 KRC, Second Edition (May 2020) (DHBC site PDF); 2018 KBC, Third Edition (August 2022) (DHBC site PDF); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 198B.050 (uniform state building code); KRS § 198B.060 (enforcement). Local governments are required to employ a building official and code enforcement personnel, or contract to parties for such responsibilities to enforce the Uniform State Building Code through permits, plan reviews, and inspections. KRS § 198B.060. The City of Anytown, Any County, Kentucky does not provide any information about building codes, permits, or any building department official. Means of Egress The IBC defines “Means of Egress” as “[a] continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.” 2015 IBC § 202 Definitions (emphasis added). The IBC provides that maintenance of a means of egress should be in accordance with the IFC. 2015 IBC § [F] 1001.3. In addition, the IEBC requires that repairs done to an existing building must be done in a manner that maintains the level of protection provided for the means of egress. 2015 IEBC § 604.1. The IBC also requires “accessible routes” be maintained in accordance with standard ICC A117.1. 2015 IBC § 1101.2. Both the IBC and IFC provide provisions requiring the floor surface of a means of egress be “slip-resistant” and “securely attached” and that the capacity of a means of egress system “not be diminished along the path of egress travel.” In addition, the exit discharge to a public way must be “permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area” and provide “safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building.” 2015 IBC Chapter 10; 2015 IFC Chapter 10. IBC Provisions The IBC provides the following regarding safety and the maintenance of a means of egress: 1003.1 Applicability. The general requirements specified in Sections 1003 through 1015 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress system, in addition to those specific requirements for the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge detailed elsewhere in this chapter. … 1003.4 Floor surface. Walking surfaces of the means of egress shall have a slip-resistant surface and be securely attached. 1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1010 shall be used. Where the difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials. … 1003.6 Means of egress continuity. The path of egress travel along a means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than a means of egress component as specified in this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of a means of egress except projections permitted by this chapter. The minimum width or required capacity of a means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel. … 1009.1 Accessible means of egress required. Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress is required by Section 1006.2 or 1006.3 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress. … 1028.5 Access to a public way. The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way. Exception: Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of the following are met: The area shall be of a size to accommodate at least 5 square feet (0.46 m2) for each person. The area shall be located on the same lot at least 50 feet (15 240 mm) away from the building requiring egress. The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area. The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building. 2015 IBC Chapter 10. IFC Provisions The 2015 IFC provides the following regarding the maintenance of a means of egress: SECTION 1031 MAINTENANCE OF THE MEANS OF EGRESS 1031.1 General. The means of egress for buildings or portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section. 1031.2 Reliability. Required exit accesses, exits and exit discharges shall be continuously maintained free from obstructions or impediments to full instant use in the case of fire or other emergency when the building area served by the means of egress is occupied. An exit or exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose that interferes with a means of egress. … 1031.3 Obstructions. A means of egress shall be free from obstructions that would prevent its use, including the accumulation of snow and ice. SECTION 1003 GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS [BE] 1003.4 Slip-resistant surface. Circulation paths of the means of egress shall have a slip-resistant surface and be securely attached. [BE] 1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1012 shall be used. Where the difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials. … [BE] 1003.6 Means of egress continuity. The path of travel along a means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than a means of egress component as specified in this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of a means of egress except projections permitted by this chapter. The required capacity of a means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel. 2015 IFC Chapter 10. IBC Accessibility Requirements and Change in Elevation For accessible routes, meaning those designed for people with disabilities, it is important to note that if this entrance was designed as an accessible route, then several additional maintenance requirements are set forth by the IBC. Accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the IBC, would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. ICCA117.1 § Sec. 303.2. The IBC requires: 1101.2 Design. Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1. … 1104.1 Site arrival points. At least one accessible route within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served. Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access. … 1104.3 Connected spaces. Where a building or portion of a building is required to be accessible, at least one accessible route shall be provided to each portion of the building, to accessible building entrances connecting accessible pedestrian walkways and to the public way. 2015 IBC Chapter 11. It's important to note that the ICCA117.1 applies to designs for new accessible paths and alterations as well as other work regulated by the code. However, it is not clear that it would trigger an independent obligation to launch subsequent work for its own sake. The "scoping" language reads: 201 General. This standard provides technical criteria for making sites, facilities, buildings, and elements accessible. The administrative authority shall provide scoping provisions to specify the extent to which these technical criteria apply. These scoping provisions shall address the application of this standard to: each building and occupancy type; new construction, alterations, temporary facilities, and existing buildings; specific site and building elements; and to multiple elements or spaces provided within a site or building. ICCA117.1 § 201. In any event, ICC A117.1 provides requirements for floor surfaces and changes in level that are in line with the ADA: 302 Floor Surfaces 302.1 General. Floor surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant, and shall comply with Section 302. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303. … 302.3 Openings. Openings in floor surfaces shall be of a size that does not permit the passage of a 1/2 inch (13 mm) diameter sphere, except as allowed in Sections 407.4.3, 408.4.3, 409.4.3, 410.4, and 805.10. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the predominant direction of travel. … 303 Changes in Level 303.1 General. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303. 303.2 Vertical. Changes in level of 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) maximum in height shall be permitted to be vertical. 303.3 Beveled. Changes in level greater than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) in height and not more than 1/2 inch (13 mm) maximum in height shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1 :2. 303.4 Ramps. Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch (13 mm) in height shall be ramped and shall comply with Section 405 or 406. ICCA117.1 § Sec. 303. For example, when constructing an accessible route from a handicapped parking spot to the interior of the building, A117.1 would require the entire path from the car to the interior to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. For buildings required to comply directly with ADA accessibility, specifications are quite clear that anything over ½” change in elevation of the walking surface would be in violation. Maintenance Kentucky specifically removed adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code in the amendments to the IEBC. 2018 KBC, Third Edition (August 2022) § 3401.3. As noted above, the sections discussing maintenance in the IBC, IEBC, and IFC do not provide any specific standards, but further support the requirement of maintaining walkways in a safe condition. Voluntary ASTM Standard F1637-13 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) publishes a voluntary standard entitled Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces, F1637-13. One court, examining facts of an alleged trip and fall accident discussed the relative and limited importance of the F1637-13 voluntary standard: “Reliance on professional guidelines or standards is a generally appropriate methodology for experts to use when opining on an applicable standard of care. (citations omitted.) Yet, because voluntary guidelines do not amount to legal requirements because they have not been formally adopted as definitive criteria by which the legality of activity will be measured, caution must be exercised to ensure that they are clearly relevant and applicable to the circumstances presented in a negligence suit.” Girdler v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 2d 168, 191 (D.D.C. 2013). Kentucky courts have not considered this voluntary standard. The common standard for reviewing this issue is if the landowner “knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees.” Restatement (Torts) 2d, § 343(a) So, a violation of F1637-13 is not a violation of a municipal code unless adopted, which it has not been in Kentucky and could not support a finding of negligence per se. Testimony on such a violation can nonetheless be relevant in legal proceedings as persuasive support for the trier of fact that a safety issue was present. In this regard, note that F1637-13 provides in part as follows: 5.2 Walkway Changes in Level: 5.2.1 Adjoining walkway surfaces shall be made flush and fair, whenever possible and for new construction and existing facilities to the extent practicable. 5.2.2 Changes in levels up to 1⁄4 in. (6 mm) may be vertical and without edge treatment. (See Fig. 1.) 5.2.3 Changes in levels between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 in. (6 and 12 mm) shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (rise:run). 5.2.4 Changes in levels greater than 1⁄2 in. (12 mm) shall be transitioned by means of a ramp or stairway that complies with applicable building codes, regulations, standards, or ordinances, or all of these. ASTM F1637-13. Relevant definitions include: walkway, n— walking surfaces constructed for pedestrian usage including floors, ramps, walks, sidewalks, stair treads, parking lots and similar paved areas that may be reasonably foreseeable as pedestrian paths. Natural surfaces such as fields, playing fields, paths, walks, or footpaths, or a combination thereof, are not included. foreseeable pedestrian path, n— any place where a pedestrian could reasonably be expected to walk. ASTM F1646-16 Standard Terminology Relating to Walkway Safety and Footwear. Note that this voluntary standard does not mention timeframes regarding notice, inspection, reasonable time to cure potential defects, etc. for anyone actually adopting the standard. Accordingly, this standard is applicable only as a persuasive tool. Negligence Per Se In Kentucky, negligence per se claims are permissible by statute. See PLRB Duty Created by Building Codes – Kentucky. “A person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation.” KRS § 446.070. In order for a violation to become negligence per se, the plaintiff must not only prove duty and an injury suffered but also that they are a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by the regulation and the injury suffered must be an event which the regulation was designed to prevent. Only when these requirements are affirmatively demonstrated is negligence per se established with the applicable regulation or statute defining the relevant standard of care. Alderman v. Bradley, 957 S.W.2d 264, 267 (1997). In Kentucky, building code violations, if proved, support a claim of negligence per se. Real Estate Marketing, Inc. v. Franz, 885 S.W.2d 921, 927 (1994). Because negligence per se is “merely a negligence claim with a statutory standard of care substituted for the common law standard of care,” there are defenses to such a claim. Franz, 885 S.W.2d 921, 927, quoting Atherton Condo. Apt.-Owners Assoc. Bd. of Dir., 799 P.2 250 (1990). First, there is a time limitation on claims made under the KBC that they must be brought within one year of discovery of damage, but not more than 10 years after first occupation or settlement. KRS § 198B.130. It does not appear that this would apply in the instant case. Next, Kentucky is a comparative fault state. KRS § 411.182. The violation of the building code must be a substantial factor in causing the injury to meet the factor for negligence per se. Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432, 438 (2001). Accordingly, whether a claimant was herself negligent is possibly a factor, and if significant may eliminate liability, thus it is a question for the trier of fact whether the building code violation was a substantial factor in causing the resulting injury. Hargis v. Baize, 168 S.W.3d 36, 46 (2005). Conclusion The applicable Kentucky building codes appear to apply directly to the instant situation as the hallway falls within the definition of means of egress. The IBC requires a "means of egress" to be maintained in accordance with the IFC. And, it requires "accessible routes" be maintained in accordance with accessibility standard ICC A117.1. Accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the IBC, would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. Similarly, the voluntary standard published by the ASTM, though not adopted here, could be used as persuasive argument to find that action is required with an elevation change over 1 inch. The elevation change is clearly in violation of the KBC provisions covering means of egress as there is no ramp, railings, or other markings warning of the potential hazard. Ultimately, the question of liability of any legal claim would come down to whether any comparative fault of the claimant is significant enough to avoid liability. How are we doing with this building code research service? We hope you find this answer helpful. If you have a moment, please let us know how we are doing by replying to this email. Property & Liability Resource Bureau Disclaimer We hope this discussion assists you. It is intended to present you with information about case law and other authority applicable to the interpretation of the relevant insurance policy provisions. Any opinions expressed are for internal use only. This discussion is presented as information only and is not offered as legal advice or an offer of legal representation. PLRB research and writing is not a substitute for legal advice as to the law of a particular jurisdiction as applied in the full factual context of a particular claim. The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the staff of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the membership. The opinions of the staff of the Bureau do not represent an indication or prediction of any future action or position of any member insurer. You should consult with your company's management to determine your company's positions on the issues discussed. Confidentiality & Copyright Notice Property & Liability Resource Bureau members may reproduce this material or any portion of it for the exclusive use of their employees. Any other reproduction or distribution of this material or any portion of it without the express written consent of the Bureau is strictly prohibited. A full statement of our confidentiality policy and its rationale is here Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024
Raised Platform Dining Area in Restaurant in Chicago, IL
QUESTION: Does the building code regulate a height difference of approximately 6.25” to an interior dining area of a commercial property utilized as a restaurant in Chicago, Illinois, where a claimant pushed a chair back and fell backward off the dining area? RESPONSE: Unclear. Numerous provisions in the Chicago Construction Codes could arguably apply to the platform dining area in this case, but it is unclear if any specific safety provisions in the codes apply. The CBC allows the construction of permanent platform areas, requiring the platform be constructed with the same materials as required for the type of construction of the building, but does not provide specific safety criteria with respect to platforms. Both the Chicago Building Code (CBC) and Chicago Minimum Requirements for Existing Buildings contain provisions requiring handrails and guards be installed in certain situations, none of which specifically apply to platform seating areas. Other situations with a much larger change in elevation than present in this case are required to have handrails and guards installed. The CBC defines “Means of Egress” as a “continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupiable space in a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.” The CBC provides requirements that the floor surface of a means of egress be “slip-resistant” and “securely attached” and that the capacity of a means of egress system “not be diminished along the path of egress travel.” Further, the CBC requires “accessible routes” follow several additional maintenance requirements set forth by the CBC and accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the CBC. Of particular note, this would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. FACTS: The subject property is a restaurant in Chicago, Illinois. A dining area sits on a raised platform that has one approximately 6.25-inch step. The step has a light that runs along the nose of the step and illuminates the kickplate. A customer was sitting at a chair by a table on the platform, pushed the chair back, and fell backward off the platform area. DISCUSSION: Applicable Code Illinois has not adopted a statewide building code; however, any new commercial construction in municipalities or unincorporated zones of counties that have not enacted a building code, must comply with the most recent version of the International Building Code (IBC), including Appendix G and excluding Chapters 11, 13, and 29. 20 ILCS 3105/10.09-1. Beginning January 1, 2025, any building code in the state must regulate the structural design of new non-residential buildings at least as stringent as the baseline code, which is the IBC first published during the current year or preceding 9 calendar years with the least restrictive provisions for structural design. 20 ILCS 3105/10.18. Illinois has not adopted a statewide existing building code; however, any rehabilitation work on existing commercial buildings in municipalities or unincorporated zones of counties that have not enacted a building code, must comply with the most recent version of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). 20 ILCS 3105/10.09-1. Beginning January 1, 2025, any existing building code in the state must regulate the structural design of rehabilitation work of existing buildings at least as stringent as the baseline code, which is the IEBC first published during the current year or preceding 9 calendar years with the least restrictive provisions for structural design. 20 ILCS 3105/10.18. Any municipality or county is authorized to adopt a local building code that must be registered with the Capital Development Board. 65 ILCS 5/1-3-2 (municipalities); 55 ILCS 5/5-6002 (counties). The City of Chicago adopted the 2018 IBC, with amendments, as the building code for the City of Chicago, known as the 2019 Chicago Building Code (CBC) and part of the Chicago Construction Codes (CCC). Municipal Code of Chicago, §§ 14B-1-001 and 14B-1-003. The CBC applies to the new construction of buildings and structures. Municipal Code of Chicago, § 14A-1-101.4.1. The Chicago Building Rehabilitation Code (CBRC) applies to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to, and relocation of existing structures. Municipal Code of Chicago, § 14A-1-101.4.9. The Chicago Minimum Requirements for Existing Buildings (CMREB) establish minimum standards for equipment and facilities, light and ventilation, space heating, sanitation, life and fire safety protection, and occupancy of existing structures and premises. Municipal Code of Chicago, § 14A-1-101.4.12. Platform Seating The City of Chicago revised the definition of “platform” in the CBC to read: “PLATFORM. A raised area used for worship; the presentation of music, plays or other entertainment; the head table for special guests; the raised area for lecturers and speakers; boxing and wrestling rings; theater-in-the- round; and similar purposes wherein, other than horizontal sliding curtains, there are no overhead hanging curtains, drops, scenery or theatrical effects other than lighting and sound.” Municipal Code of Chicago, § 14B-2-202 (177). Section 410.3 of the CBC provides requirements for the construction of permanent platforms: “Permanent platforms shall be constructed of materials as required for the type of construction of the building in which the permanent platform is located. Permanent platforms are permitted to be constructed of fire-retardant-treated wood for Types I, II and IV construction where the platforms are not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the main floor, and not more than one-third of the room floor area and not more than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in area. Where the space beneath the permanent platform is used for storage or any purpose other than equipment, wiring or plumbing, the floor assembly shall be not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction. Where the space beneath the permanent platform is used only for equipment, wiring or plumbing, the underside of the permanent platform need not be protected.” 2019 CBC § 410.3. No specific safety requirements with respect to platforms could be located in the CCC. However, the means of egress requirements under Chapter 10, Accessibility provisions of Chapter 11, and the maintenance provisions of the CMREB may be applicable to platform areas and should be consulted. 2019 CBC § 410.5. Means of Egress The CBC defines “Means of Egress” as a “continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupiable space in a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.” Municipal Code of Chicago, § 14B-2-202 (157) (emphasis in original). This chapter, and Chapter 11, Accessibility, provide requirements for changes in elevation. The CBC provides that maintenance of a means of egress should be in accordance with the Chicago Minimum Requirements for Existing Buildings and the Chicago Fire Code (CFC). 2019 CBC § 1002.1. In addition, the CMREB requires that every component of a means of egress must be kept clear and unobstructed to provide a safe, continuous, and unobstructed path from any occupiable space to the public way. 2019 CMREB § 14X-5-505.1.2. The IBC also requires “accessible routes” be maintained in accordance with standard ICC A117.1. 2015 IBC § 1101.2. The CBC provides provisions requiring the floor surface of a means of egress be “slip-resistant” and “securely attached” and that the capacity of a means of egress system “not be diminished along the path of egress travel.” In addition, the exit discharge to a public way must be “permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area” and provide “safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building.” 2019 CBC Chapter 10. CBC Provisions The CBC provides the following regarding safety and the maintenance of a means of egress: “1003.1 Applicability. The general requirements specified in Sections 1003 through 1015 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress system, in addition to those specific requirements for the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge detailed elsewhere in this chapter. … 1003.4 Slip-resistant surface. Circulation paths of the means of egress shall have a slip-resistant surface that is securely attached…. 1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1012 shall be used. Where a ramp is used for a difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials. Exceptions: … A stair with a single riser or with two risers and a tread is permitted at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11 where the risers and treads comply with Section 1011.5, the minimum depth of the tread is 13 inches (330 mm) and a handrail is provided in accordance with Section 1014. … 1003.6 Means of egress continuity. The path of egress travel along a means of egress shall not be interrupted by a building element other than a means of egress component as specified in this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the minimum width or required capacity of a means of egress except projections permitted by this chapter. The minimum width or required capacity of a means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel. … 1009.1 Accessible means of egress required. Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress is required by Section 1006.2 or 1006.3 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress. … 1011.11 Handrails. Flights of stairs shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014. Where glass is used to provide or support the handrail, the handrail or support shall comply with Section 2407. Exceptions: … Where allowed, a change in elevation consisting of a single riser at an entrance or egress door does not require handrails. … 1014 Handrails. 1014.1 Where required. Handrails serving flights of stairways, ramps, stepped aisles and ramped aisles shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8. Handrails required for flights of stairways by Section 1011.11 shall comply with Sections 1014.2 through 1014.9. Handrails required for ramps by Section 1012.8 shall comply with Sections 1014.2 through 1014.8. Handrails for stepped aisles and ramped aisles required by section 1029.16 shall comply with Sections 1014.2 through 1014.8. 1015.2 Where Required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8. … 1028.5 Access to a public way. The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way. Exception: Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be provided where all of the following are met: The area shall be of a size to accommodate at least 5 square feet (0.46 m2) for each person. The area shall be located on the same lot at least 50 feet (15 240 mm) away from the building requiring egress. The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area. The area shall be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building.” 2019 CBC Chapter 10. Based on these sections, because there is a single step, a handrail would fit under exception 3 to Section 1011.11 and not be required. Similarly, the exception to the requirement for sloped surfaces in Section 1003.5 would apply as long as the area is not required to be accessible. While that exception requires a handrail, it is likely the more specific exception for handrails in section 1011.11 would not require a handrail in this case. Furthermore, as a practical matter, these exceptions seem appropriate in this case as attempting to install guards or handrails in this situation would appear to be a difficult task at best. CBC Accessibility Requirements and Change in Elevation For accessible routes, meaning those designed for people with disabilities, it is important to note that if this entrance was designed as an accessible route, then several additional maintenance requirements are set forth by the CBC. Accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the CBC, would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. ICCA117.1 § Sec. 303.2. The CBC requires: “1101.2 Design. Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1. … 1104.1 Site arrival points. At least one accessible route within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served. Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access. … 1104.3 Connected spaces. Where a building or portion of a building is required to be accessible, at least one accessible route shall be provided to each portion of the building, to accessible building entrances connecting accessible pedestrian walkways and to the public way.” 2019 CBC Chapter 11. It's important to note that the ICCA117.1 applies to designs for new accessible paths and alterations as well as other work regulated by the code. However, it is not clear that it would trigger an independent obligation to launch subsequent work for its own sake. The "scoping" language reads: “201 General. This standard provides technical criteria for making sites, facilities, buildings, and elements accessible. The administrative authority shall provide scoping provisions to specify the extent to which these technical criteria apply. These scoping provisions shall address the application of this standard to: each building and occupancy type; new construction, alterations, temporary facilities, and existing buildings; specific site and building elements; and to multiple elements or spaces provided within a site or building.” ICCA117.1 § 201. In any event, ICC A117.1 provides requirements for floor surfaces and changes in level that are in line with the ADA: “302 Floor Surfaces 302.1 General. Floor surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant, and shall comply with Section 302. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303. … 302.3 Openings. Openings in floor surfaces shall be of a size that does not permit the passage of a 1/2 inch (13 mm) diameter sphere, except as allowed in Sections 407.4.3, 408.4.3, 409.4.3, 410.4, and 805.10. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the predominant direction of travel. … 303 Changes in Level 303.1 General. Changes in level in floor surfaces shall comply with Section 303. 303.2 Vertical. Changes in level of 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) maximum in height shall be permitted to be vertical. 303.3 Beveled. Changes in level greater than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) in height and not more than 1/2 inch (13 mm) maximum in height shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1 :2. 303.4 Ramps. Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch (13 mm) in height shall be ramped and shall comply with Section 405 or 406.” ICCA117.1 § Sec. 303. For example, when constructing an accessible route from a handicapped parking spot to the interior of the building, A117.1 would require the entire path from the car to the interior to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. For buildings required to comply directly with ADA accessibility, specifications are quite clear that anything over ½” change in elevation of the walking surface would be in violation. These standards are not likely to apply directly to a single step to a raised platform area. Maintenance Provisions The CMREB contains a chapter on property maintenance with provisions that could be applicable to a platform dining area. In particular, the sections concerning handrails and guardrails provide: “14X-3-306.1 Handrail. Exterior and interior flights of stairs with more than four risers must have a handrail on at least one side of the stair. Existing handrails must be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) or more than 42 inches (1067 mm) measured vertically above the nosing of the tread or above the finished floor of the landing or walking surface. 14X-3-306.2 Guards. Open sides of a stair, landing, balcony, porch, deck, ramp, or other walking surface that is more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or ground immediately below must have guards. Existing guards must be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in height above the floor of the landing, balcony, porch, deck, ramp, or other walking surface. Existing guards must be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height where the walking surface is more than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the floor or ground immediately below. Exceptions: Guards are not required in existing buildings where not required for new construction by the Chicago Building Code. Open sides of a stairway equipped with a handrail on at least one side in accordance with Section 14X-3-306.1, where the walking surface is less than 8 feet (2438 mm) above the floor or ground immediately below.” 2019 CMREB § 14X-306. These provisions would not seem to apply to the instant case where this a single step of less than seven inches, which is substantially less than the 30 inches cited in these sections. Negligence and Illinois Building Code In Illinois, the violation of an applicable building statute or ordinance designed to protect human life or property is prima facie evidence of negligence but does not constitute negligence per se. See PLRB Duty Created by Building Codes – Illinois. To prevail on a claim of negligence based on a violation of a building code ordinance, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the plaintiff is a member of the class of persons the ordinance was designed to protect, (2) the injury is the type of injury that the ordinance was intended to protect against, and (3) the defendant's violation of the statute or ordinance was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Kalata v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 144 Ill. 2d 425, 434-35 (1991). Because this does not constitute negligence per se in Illinois, the showing that such a statute or ordinance was violated is not conclusive but is nonbinding evidence of duty and breach for the jury to consider. Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Prop. Assoc., 305 Ill. App. 3d 45, 58-59 (2d Dist. 1999). A defendant may prevail if they show that they acted reasonably under the circumstances or the code violation was not a proximate cause of the injury. Id. Furthermore, if there is evidence that a claimant was contributorily negligent, a defendant may raise that issue as an affirmative defense. A party is guilty of contributory negligence if they fail to exercise ordinary care for their own safety and their negligence is the proximate cause of his injury. Parsons v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 2017 IL App (1st) 161384. Conclusion The CCC allow for the construction of platform areas, but it is somewhat unclear as to how much they regulate a change in elevation of 6.25”, with only one step up to the platform. We could not find specifically applicable safety provisions with respect to a platform dining area. Because there is just a single step, many provisions within the CBC and CMREB do not appear to apply. It is possible that the platform dining area would be considered an occupiable space within the definition of means of egress and the provisions regulating paths of egress would apply. In addition, the CBC requires “accessible routes” be maintained in accordance with accessibility standard ICC A117.1. Accessibility standard ICC A117.1, as incorporated by the CBC, would require accessible routes to be free of vertical changes in level more than ¼”, or ½” if beveled. However, this case involves a distinct single step of just under seven inches, not a change in elevation within a walkway. The CCC contains provisions for handrails and guards, but those also appear to remove the instant platform from those requirements because the change in elevation is a single step and less than 30 inches. Ultimately, Illinois is not a negligence per se state and courts will allow evidence of building code violations to be used as evidence of negligence, not to establish a duty, thus these provisions could possibly be argued to try to establish a defendant did not act with proper care. How are we doing with this building code research service? We hope you find this answer helpful. If you have a moment, please let us know how we are doing by replying to this email. Property & Liability Resource Bureau Disclaimer We hope this discussion assists you. It is intended to present you with information about case law and other authority applicable to the interpretation of the relevant insurance policy provisions. Any opinions expressed are for internal use only. This discussion is presented as information only and is not offered as legal advice or an offer of legal representation. PLRB research and writing is not a substitute for legal advice as to the law of a particular jurisdiction as applied in the full factual context of a particular claim. The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the staff of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the membership. The opinions of the staff of the Bureau do not represent an indication or prediction of any future action or position of any member insurer. You should consult with your company's management to determine your company's positions on the issues discussed. Confidentiality & Copyright Notice Property & Liability Resource Bureau members may reproduce this material or any portion of it for the exclusive use of their employees. Any other reproduction or distribution of this material or any portion of it without the express written consent of the Bureau is strictly prohibited. A full statement of our confidentiality policy and its rationale is here Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024
Ventilation and Reroofing or Roof Replacement in Fort Lupton, CO
QUESTION: For a private residence in Fort Lupton, Colorado, is ice and water shield required at eaves and valleys when completing a reroofing project? RESPONSE: Yes. The 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) was adopted by the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, as the residential code for the City. Section R905.2.7.1 covers ice barrier requirements and does not require ice and water shield, ice barrier underlayment, unless there is a history of ice forming along the eaves causing a backup of water, which is left to local jurisdictions to determine and adopt the requirement. Fort Lupton completed Table R301.2(1) and indicated “Yes” in the “Ice Barrier Underlayment Required” column. Possibly. Valley linings are covered in section R905.2.8.2, separately from the Ice Barrier Underlayment requirement of Section R905.2.7.1. The valley lining requirements permit different methods of underlayment, including self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 (aka ice barrier underlayment), but the code does not require this underlayment. The IRC requires roof coverings be installed pursuant to manufacturer’s instructions throughout Chapter 9, including the valley lining provisions. Consultation of the manufacturer’s instructions is necessary to determine if ice barrier underlayment is required in valleys. FACTS: Roof replacement on insured's home located in Fort Lupton, Colorado. DISCUSSION: Colorado has no mandatory statewide residential code for privately owned one- or two-family dwellings and townhomes. Counties may adopt, administer, enforce, and amend building codes for all types of buildings and structures, except for those buildings and structures used only for shelter for agricultural implements, farm products, livestock, or poultry. C.R.S. 30-28-201(1) (authority to adopt); C.R.S. 30-28-205(1) (enforcement); C.R.S. 30-28-204 (amendment). Building codes must be promulgated “with a reasonable consideration of, and in accordance with, the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare and the safety, protection, and sanitation of such dwellings, buildings and structures.” C.R.S. 30-28-203. Municipalities, like counties, may enact building codes. C.R.S. 31-15-601(2) (municipal building and fire regulations); Colo. Const. Art. XX, § 6 (home rule powers). The authority to establish building codes implicitly includes the power to enforce the content of the codes. West Adams County Fire Protection District v. Adams County School District 12, 926 P.2d 172, 175-76 (Colo. App. 1996). Pursuant to its home rule powers, the City of Fort Lupton adopted the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC), with amendments. Fort Lupton, Colorado, Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article XI, § 18-221. 2012 IRC Reroofing Section R907 of the 2012 IRC on Reroofing requires that recovering or replacing an existing roof must comply with the materials and methods outlined for new roofs in Chapter 9. 2012 IRC § R907.1. Therefore, the provisions concerning ice barrier underlayment in Chapter 9 must be considered. ICE BARRIER UNDERLAYMENT Ice barrier underlayment is required under Section R905.2.7.1 where there is a history of ice forming along eaves as designated in local amendments in Table R301.2. 2012 IRC § R905.2.7.1. Pursuant to Section R905.2.7.1, the City of Fort Lupton completed Table R301.2(1) indicating “YES” that ice barrier underlayment is required. Fort Lupton, Colorado, Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article XI, § 18-225. Accordingly, the City of Fort Lupton requires the installation of ice barrier underlayment at the eaves when installing or replacing a roof. Valley Lining and Underlayment In general, roof covering material should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions: Roof coverings shall be applied in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section and the manufacturer's installation instructions. Unless otherwise specified in this section, roof coverings shall be installed to resist the component and cladding loads specified in Table R301.2(2), adjusted for height and exposure in accordance with Table R301.2(3). 2012 IRC § R905.1. Valley linings are covered separately under Section R905.2.8.2: “Valley linings shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions before applying shingles. Valley linings of the following types shall be permitted: For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide and of any of the corrosion-resistant metals in Table R905.2.8.2. For open valleys, valley lining of two plies of mineral-surfaced roll roofing, complying with ASTM D3909 or ASTM D6380 Class M, shall be permitted. The bottom layer shall be 18 inches (457 mm) and the top layer not less than 36 inches (914 mm) wide. For closed valleys (valley covered with shingles), valley lining of one ply of smooth roll roofing complying with ASTM D6380 and not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as described in Item 1 or 2 shall be permitted. Self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 shall be permitted in lieu of the lining material.” 2012 IRC § R905.2.8.2. Subsections 1 and 2 are specifically cited for open valleys but the listed installation methods are permitted for closed valleys in subsection 3. Subsection 1 includes metal valleys with specifications but no installation instructions. Subsection 2 allows for two plies of roll roofing. Subsection 3 is specific to closed valleys and allows for one ply of roll roofing, either method described in the other subsections, or ice and water shield (ice barrier underlayment) material. (Note: "Self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970" is a technical way of referring to ice barrier underlayment). This suggests that standard underlayment cannot be used as a replacement for valley liners. CONCLUSION: The City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, adopted the 2012 IRC and completed Table 301.2(1) to require the installation of ice barrier underlayment at the eaves when installing or replacing a roof. Valley linings are treated separately in the IRC and there is no specific requirement for ice barrier underlayment, though it is cited as a permissible underlayment option for closed valleys. The manufacturer's instructions must be considered to determine what underlayment is required for open or closed valleys. How are we doing with this building code research service? We hope you find this answer helpful. If you have a moment, please let us know how we are doing by replying to this email. Property & Liability Resource Bureau Disclaimer We hope this discussion assists you. It is intended to present you with information about case law and other authority applicable to the interpretation of the relevant insurance policy provisions. Any opinions expressed are for internal use only. This discussion is presented as information only and is not offered as legal advice or an offer of legal representation. PLRB research and writing is not a substitute for legal advice as to the law of a particular jurisdiction as applied in the full factual context of a particular claim. The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the staff of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the membership. The opinions of the staff of the Bureau do not represent an indication or prediction of any future action or position of any member insurer. You should consult with your company's management to determine your company's positions on the issues discussed. Confidentiality & Copyright Notice Property & Liability Resource Bureau members may reproduce this material or any portion of it for the exclusive use of their employees. Any other reproduction or distribution of this material or any portion of it without the express written consent of the Bureau is strictly prohibited. A full statement of our confidentiality policy and its rationale is here Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024
Ice Barrier Underlayment and Drip Edge Flashing Requirements for Re-roofing in Bessemer City, NC
April 11, 2024 By Dan Hartweg QUESTION: For a private residence in Bessemer City, Gaston County, North Carolina, is (1) ice barrier underlayment required when re-roofing and is (2) drip edge flashing required when re-roofing? RESPONSE: Probably Not. The 2018 North Carolina Residential Code (NCRC) does not require ice and water underlayment, referred to as an “ice barrier” in the IRC, unless the average January temperature in a jurisdiction is less than 25°F or the jurisdiction requires ice barrier underlayment by completing Table R301.2(1). 2018 NCRC § R905.1.2. The City of Bessemer City adopted the 2018 NCRC but did not amend Table R301.2(1). Code of Ordinances of the City of Bessemer City, North Carolina § 150.021. The average daily temperature in January in Bessemer City is above 25°F, but it is uncertain if the City completed Table R301.2(1). We were unable to find a contact for the City of Bessemer City, but contacted the Gaston County Director of Building Inspections, which enforces the NCRC for the City, in an attempt to confirm whether ice barrier underlayment was required under the current residential building code. We have yet to receive a response and will forward any information that may be received. Possibly. If the asphalt shingle roofing system manufacturer specifically requires the installation of drip edge flashing, it is required. When re-roofing, the NCRC requires that the provisions for asphalt shingle roofs in Chapter 9 for new construction be followed. The NCRC version published by the International Code Council is dated May 2018 and states that the drip edge requirement of the model code was deleted. However, a subsequent amendment to the NCRC removed that deletion and added that drip edges are required when the roofing system manufacturer requires. FACTS: Re-roofing insured's home in Bessemer City, North Carolina. DISCUSSION: The state of North Carolina adopted the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), with amendments, as the mandatory statewide 2018 North Carolina Residential Code (NCRC) and part of the North Carolina State Building Code (NCSBC). N.C.G.S. § 143-138(a) (authority for Building Code Council to prepare and adopt); 2018 North Carolina Residential Code; 2017-2023 Approved Amendments. The NCRC includes Appendices A, B, C, G, K, N, and P from the IRC and additional Appendices E, M, O, Q, V, and W adopted in the North Carolina Amendments. 2018 NCRC. Bessemer City adopted the 2018 NCRC as the residential code for the city without additional amendments. Code of Ordinances of the City of Bessemer City, North Carolina § 150.021. However, we could not identify any building department or inspector information for the city. Gaston County enforces building codes through the permitting process for unincorporated areas as well as several incorporated areas in the county, including Bessemer City. See https://www.gastongov.com/175/Building-Inspections. Ice Barrier Underlayment Chapter 9 of the NCRC covers roof assemblies and applies for both new construction and re-roofing projects as provided in Section R908.1. 2018 NCRC § R908.1. Roof covering requirements are provided in Section R905, with asphalt shingle roofs specifically covered in section R905.2. 2018 NCRC § R905.2. Ice barriers are discussed in Section R905.1.2 of the NCRC. 2018 NCRC § R905.1.2. An ice barrier is required where the average daily temperature in January is 25°F or less or when designated in local amendments in Table R301.2(1). 2018 NCRC § R905.1.2. The “Ice Barrier Underlayment Required” column in Table R301.2(1) is left blank in the NCRC to be completed by a local jurisdiction to account for individual climate conditions in the area. 2018 NCRC Table R301.2(1). As noted above, Bessemer City adopted the 2018 NCRC, without amendment. Code of Ordinances of the City of Bessemer City, North Carolina § 150.021. No further information was found in the ordinances regarding ice barriers or whether the city amended Table R301.2(1). In addition, as the Gaston County Building Department enforces the NCRC for the city, we reviewed the county website and could not find any information concerning ice barrier underlayment requirements. With respect to the factors listed in Section R905.1.2 of the NCRC, the average daily temperature in January in Bessemer City, North Carolina, is 41°F. See https://myperfectweather.com/api/cityinfo/37071Bes/degF/Average-Weather-in-Bessemer-City-North-Carolina-United-States-Year-Round. Accordingly, the average daily temperature is above the listed temperature in Section R905.2.7.1. Therefore, the average temperature and lack of amendment to Table R301.2(1) by Bessemer City, it is unlikely that ice barrier underlayment is required. In an attempt to confirm this, we were unable to find a contact for the City of Bessemer City. However, because the Gaston County Building Department enforces the NCRC for the city, we contacted the Director of Building Inspections in an attempt to confirm whether ice barrier underlayment was required under the current residential building code. We have yet to receive a response and will forward any information that may be received. Drip Edge Requirements The NCRC discusses drip edges for installations with asphalt roof shingles but not for other sloped roof coverings such as wood shakes, wood shingles, slate shingles, clay or concrete tile. For residential buildings, the drip edge requirement for asphalt shingles was added to the IRC beginning with the 2012 edition. So, residential buildings constructed or repaired under earlier versions of the IRC would not be required to have drip edges, but drip edges may nonetheless have been installed as a good practice. Chapter 9 of the NCRC covers roof assemblies and applies for both new construction and re-roofing projects as provided in Section R908.1. 2018 NCRC § R908.1. Roof covering requirements are provided in Section R905, with asphalt shingle roofs specifically covered in section R905.2. 2018 NCRC § R905.2. Therefore, the drip edge provision under Section R905.2.8.5 applies to the instant project. The NCRC published by the International Code Council is dated May 2018 and states that the IRC model section covering drip edges, Section R905.2.8.5, was deleted. See 2018 NCRC § R905.2.8.5. However, the approved amendments to the IRC prepared by the Building Code Council remove that deletion and provide amended text stating that drip edge is “[n]ot required unless required by the roof covering manufacturer installation instructions. The drip edge placed around the edge of a roof prior to installing the roofing material shall be designed so that water runs off over the drip edge and falls from a slight projection at the bottom edge of the roof rather than running back under, or along the eaves. Metal, wood or exterior composite materials can be used for the drip edge.” 2017-2023 Approved Amendments NC State Residential Code, last revised March 14, 2023. Accordingly, North Carolina has revised the deletion of the drip edge flashing requirement and if the roof covering manufacturer requires drip edge flashing, it is required by the NCRC. In addition, North Carolina provides extra detail in this amendment concerning the design and materials that may be followed in installing a drip edge. CONCLUSION: Bessemer City adopted the 2018 NCRC, without amendment. An ice barrier is required where the average daily temperature in January is 25°F or less or when designated in local amendments in Table R301.2(1). Bessemer City ordinances do not contain amendments to Table 301.2(1). The typical climate data for the City support the conclusion that ice barriers are not required by the building code. We could not find a contact for the City or any City Building Department, but did reach out to the Director of Building Inspections for Gaston County, North Carolina, which enforces the NCRC for the city in an attempt to confirm that ice barrier underlayment is not required but have yet to receive a response. In the event we receive information from the County we will forward that. Based on the above analysis and the wording of the NCRC, installation of drip edge flashing when re-roofing a residential structure would not be required by the code, unless the roofing system manufacturer requires. When re-roofing, the NCRC requires that the provisions for asphalt shingle roofs in Chapter 9 for new construction be followed. The amendments to the 2018 NCRC by the Building Code Council added that drip edges are required when the roofing system manufacturer requires. Accordingly, the roof system manufacturer’s instructions and requirements must be considered to determine if drip edges are required. How are we doing with this building code research service? We hope you find this answer helpful. If you have a moment, please let us know how we are doing by replying to this email. Property & Liability Resource Bureau Disclaimer We hope this discussion assists you. It is intended to present you with information about case law and other authority applicable to the interpretation of the relevant insurance policy provisions. Any opinions expressed are for internal use only. This discussion is presented as information only and is not offered as legal advice or an offer of legal representation. PLRB research and writing is not a substitute for legal advice as to the law of a particular jurisdiction as applied in the full factual context of a particular claim. The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the staff of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the membership. The opinions of the staff of the Bureau do not represent an indication or prediction of any future action or position of any member insurer. You should consult with your company's management to determine your company's positions on the issues discussed. Confidentiality & Copyright Notice Property & Liability Resource Bureau members may reproduce this material or any portion of it for the exclusive use of their employees. Any other reproduction or distribution of this material or any portion of it without the express written consent of the Bureau is strictly prohibited. A full statement of our confidentiality policy and its rationale is here Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024
Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024