The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNY Board of Fire Underwriters JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE., TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 ~O.O IS !5 TO CERTIEY TI~AT THE FOLLOWING ,gESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE UTHOLD TOWN BOARD' AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10. 1992: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby designates the Chief Inspector and/or each of the duly appointed inspectors of New York Board of Fire Underwriters as Electrical Inspectors of the Town of Southold, and authorizes and deputizes them as agents of the Town of Southo[d to make inspectors and reinspections of all e[ectrica installations, all in accordance with Chapter 43 (Electrical Inspections) of the Code of the Town of Southold; and be it further RESOLVED that New York Board of Fire Underwriters, in accordance with Chapter 43, Section 43-2 of the Code, shall provide the Town with a Certificate of Liability Insurance in the amount of Five (5) Million Dollars, naming the Town of Southold as an additional insured. March 11, 1992 THE STATE INSURANCE FUND 199 CHURCF S'TREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007. (212) 312-7368 CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' 'COMPENSATION INSURANCE ~'"TOWNoEsouTHOLD BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 POLLY NUMBER ~1031 430-0 DATE 12/10/1998 CERTIFICATE NUMBER 393-7t3 POLICYHOLDER NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITER (ANY CORP) 40 FULTON ST NEW YORK NY 100381850 CERTIRCATE HOLDER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P.O, BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICYHOLDER NAMED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY NO. 1031 430-0 UNTIL 12/31/1999 , COVERING THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION OF THIS POLICYHOLDER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK WORK- ERS' COMPENSATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IF SAID POLICY IS CANCELLED, OR CHANGED PRIOR TO 12/31/1999 IN SUCH IT&NNER AS TO AFFECT THIS CERTIFICATE, 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH CANCELLATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER ABOVE. NOTICE BY REGULAR HAIL SO ADDRESSED SHALL BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROVISION. THE STATE INSURANCE FUND DIRECTOR. ~NSURANCE FUND UNDERWRITING THE STATE 199 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK:, N.Y- 10007 (2t2; 312-7368 CERTIFICATE OF WO ~RKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ~TOWNDF,$OUTHOLD PO HOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 POLICY NUMBER *103L'430-0 DATE 12/~0/1998 CERTIFICATE NUMBER 894-680 POLICYHOLDER NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITER (A NY CORP) 40 FULTON ST NEW YORK NY 100381850 CERTi~CATE HOLDMR TOWN'OF SOUTHOLD PO ~OX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICYHOLDER NAMED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY NO. 1031 430-0 UNTIL 12/31/1999 , COVERING THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION OF THIS POLICYHOLDER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK WORK- ERS' COMPENSATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IF SAID POLICY IS CANCELLED, OR CHANGED PRIOR TO 12/31/1999 IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AFFECT THIS CERTIFICATE, 5 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH CANCELLATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER ABOVE. NOTICE BY REGULAR MAIL SO ADDRESSED SHALL BE SUFFICIENT COHPLIANCEWi~ THIS FROVISION. THE STATE INSURANCE FUND DIRECTOR, NSURANCE FUND UNDERWRITING ACORD PRODUCER NSURED Frenkel & Co.. Inc. 560 Slyvan AYenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 The New York Board of Fire Underwriters 40 Fulton Street- 6th FL New York, NY 10038 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATIO ONL~AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOEDER;IHIShn CERTIFICATE DOES NOTAMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELO INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURERA: INSURER B: INSURER C: INSURER D: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR C~)NDITION OF;ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH TRIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE JNSUI~ANCE AFFORDEB BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH p( LlClES. AGGP, EGATE r~[MITS SH ~OWN MAY HAV~ BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. GENERAL LIABILrTY EACH OCCURRENCE t ~ 1,000,000 ~ COMMERCIA~GENERALLIABtLIIY t0T~L~X~-c2~0Z~ ~ ..L~231/2CI01 . 12/3~02 F1REDAMAGEIAnyoneflre) '~ ,,00O,00O 1 ~LAI~$ M~DE ~ OCCUR ' MED F~'P (Any one person) $ -- rSCH~DUi~ED AUTOS AI:L OWNED AUTOS I 10UE~L]9293 12/31/200! i 12/31/2002 BODILYINJURY ~ OCCr~R ~j CLMMS MADE t 01-ZUS~6166 ~2/31/200! 12/3!/2002 AGGREGATE $ ~0,000,000 $ - W(JRKE[~S ~O~I~A'I'ION'.~D -/ TORY LIMITS I / ER ' OTHER NPG1499794 05/27/01 0~/27/02 $3,000,000 Per s ~o£¢ss~ona! LJ. abJ.~ty Occurrence/Aggregate i Certificate Hold~- is named as Additional Insured as respects to General Liability Insurance while N~FBU is acting as its agent. CERTIFICATE HOLDER I I ADDITIONALINSURED;INSURER LETTER: CANCELLATION Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold,, NY 11971 ,[CEtYrcO ' ,: ACORD 25'S (7/97~- SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRAT DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 60 DAYS DAYS WRITr E NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHA IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSUREP~ ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' *' eACORD CORPORATION 1988 CERTIFICATE FRENKEL & CO., iNC. ~Wo WORLD TRADE CENTER NEW YORK', NY 10048 OF INSURANCE NEW YoRg; BOARD OF F1RE UNDERWR I TERS 40 FULTON STREET NEW VO~ NY 10038 COVERAGES §/09/98 1HIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED /.S A MATTER OF INFORMAT]Oi~ ONLY AND CONFERS NO RISHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTITICATE DOES J~OT AMEND. EXTEND OF ALTER TH~ COyER~GE AYFORpED By' THE POLICIES B~LOW COMI~ANiES A~FORDING COOPERAGE COMPANY A Hartford A~piden~ & Indemnity COMPA~Y B National IJnior~ Fire COEPANY C Reliance Ins. Co. of D Ill. ~ENERAL LIABILrrY [GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 200000C X~ CoMMERC~ALGENERALLIABILIT? 10UUNLC210 12/31197 12/31/98 ~CTS-COMP/OP A~G S 100000C :.~ ~ CLAIMS MADE ~ OCCUR P~ON~L & ADV IN,dRY $ 100000C OWN~ & ~NTRACT~ P~T ~CH ~CCURRENCE $ 100000C -- ~E DA~A~E ~ one ~ireT' ~ 500 O C ~TOMOBP-ELIAB~I~ . ~OMB~NEO SING~ LI~T $ ~ ANY AUtO 10UENLC1816 12131/g7 12/31/98 100000C HIRED AUTOS BODILY iNJURY $ EACH ACCIDENT $ EXCESS LIABI~ EACH ~CURRENCE $ ~5000000 ~ UMBRELLA ~M ' BE9321035 12/31/97 12/31/98 AGATE S 25000000 EMPLOYERS' EIAB[ffY EACH ACCIDENT $ THE PROPRIETOR/ ~ INCL DISEASE . POLl~ LIMIT $ PARTNE~ECUTIVE O~S A~: EXCL ~ Dt~ASE - ~CH ~OY~ Professional NPC149979400 5/27/98 5/27/99 $3,000,000 Per L iab i I i ty Occur rence/ J Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF 0 PERATIO N S.rLO OATIO N S/VENiCCES/SP ECIAL ITEMS Town of Southold is ncluded as additional insured as respects the General Liability insurance while r~¥BFU is acting as its agent Town of Southold 30 DAYSWRITTENNOTICETOTHEDERTIFIOATEHOL.DERNAMEDTOTHELEFT, P. O. Box 117 g sm FAF-USS TO MAP- SUCH NOTICE SHAM. IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILiTY Southold, NY 11971 oF ANY I(IND UPON THE COMPANY~ ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' 5 7 g '7 0 0 0 {~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS . MARK[AGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765~1801 OFFICE OF 'THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 23, 1992 Albert J. Reed, Vice President New York Board of Fire Underwriters 85 John Street New York, New York 10038 Dear Mr. Reed: We are in receipt of your Certificate of Liability Insurance naming the Town of Southold as an additional insured with respect to your designation of Electrical Inspectors of the Town of Southold. Thank you for providing this certificate so promptly. The Southold Town Board has one further request with respect to your appointment, please submit a current set of credentials for your firm at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: V. Lessard E~IGHAM t996 Mr. Alexander Pknie: Presiden: New York Board of Fk~ Underwriters 85 Iohn Stree~ New York, New York 10038 D~ar Mr. Pirnie: Re: Electrical tnspec~on Ordinances (Our File No.: 10727621) k is our understanding r/m: the New York Board continues [o receive inquiries from mumc~alhies concem/ng the validity of various e!ecu-ical inspection ord~nnrlces which, generally speaking, deputize the Chief Inspector and ~ch of the duly appoin:ed trmpec:o~ of the New York Board as agenm of the munic~ality to make etecmcal inspections, and require the issuance of a temporary certificate or permanen~ certificate of compliance by the Board prior to the energizing of an electrical installation. - Specifically? you have made us aware of contenfiorm being made m the effect that mese ordinances are violative of sram and federal antilrast laws. These allegations are being made on behalf of "Electrical rampectors. Inc.' which is a commercia~ enre~rise tha~ would like m ~compere~ with ~e New York Board and de:we profits fi:om doing electrical inspecuons for mumc~palities. This [e~er will confa'm our prevmus advice co you that an ord~mnce of a mumcipality Which. deputizes the New York Board as the exclusive electr~ical [mpecror in rim: jurisdiction is both constitutional and nor violative of either federal or srare an:ir:us: law. I-IISTORY i .ne New York Board of Fi~ Unde.~rirers is a nor-~or-pron: corporanon which was are. area by xn ac: or' ~e New York heg~slamre m t86/ ~ = body co~orare and politic m e~sr un ~.Alexander P~ie ApHt $, I996 Page 2 perpetuity. One of the presen~ activities of the Board is the insoectmn of elecr_rical insmllaftons. 2"ne New York Board has been malting electrical inspecdous in the State of New York since 1881, [n that year, the Board appointed its f~rsr inspector after receiving a letter from Thom~ A. Edison staring that he had a system of electrical lighting rJmr was free from any danger of f~re. Ever since then. the Board has been making electrical msoecdons, first in New York City. and. since 1949. throughout the State of New York. Presently, a number of municipalities have adopted ordinances which deputize personnel employed by the Board as authorized reoresenratives of the rmmicipaliry for making elecn-icat inspections, Such ordinances reqmre that a Certificate of Code Comoliance be furnished by the Board before an electrical installation is energY, zed. The New York Board long has allowed municip~ties in New York State to deoudze irs insp~rors in r. hJs manner where the mumcipalir£ has seen fit not m mcat the expense of inr/ng and training irs own staff of e!ecrrical ~msoecrors. Over the past ~_5 years there have b~n two moorted decisions by New York cotzrrs concerinng e!ecn'ical inspection ord'mances that appoint the New York Board of Fire Underwriters. The first and only case with orecedendal value is Saazone v. Guasparf. The New Yor~ Board of Fire Underwriters and Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. 30 N.Y.2d 920. 335 N.Y.S.2d 57I (1972); affg..36 A.D.2d 1027. 322 N.Y.S,2d 622 (4th Dept. 1971). This case was decided by the New York Court of Appeals. our highesz court, and b binding upon all corn-rs within the state, tr involved a challenge to the City of Rome's electrical impecdon ordinate which delegare~ all of the City of Rome's electrical insoecdons m New York Board of Fire Underwriters. Both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division. Fourch Department anamrnously af~anne~ [then] Justice Richard J. Cardamone's order dated January. 15. 1970 holding that exclusively delegating the Ci~ of Rome's e~.ecnSc~ inspections to the New York Board of Fire Unde~m~rkers was a perfectly valid exercise of the Cky. 's broad ootice powers in alt areas involving the safe~mxrding of public health, human life and private property.~ The other New York case involving [he validity of an etec~cal inspec~on ordinance was entitled Arlarazc fniand [nc. v. Town of ~fnion !26 Mlsc.2d 509. 483 N.Y..S.2d 612 (Broome County 198~). In this case. the Broome County Suoreme Court Supreme Courts in New York State are ,ami level courts only and [heir decisions do nor constitute binding precedenr~ held [hat rJ:le Town of U~fion's delegation of the Ne~,v York Board was an unconsnradonal and. smru~oriiy invalid deleganon of power~ Tkis decimon, which was never reviewed by an ~etlare courn ts Cen[rm rox ,.idI understanding of ~Ae scope of~ ~g ~s a mv~ew or ~e Record on Appel. became bom me Co~ of A~pe~ ~d ~e Appertain Div~ion ~o~y ~5~ J~nce Cat--one's Order ~ted J~f i5.: )70, w~ck w~ not offic:~y p~lishe~. We ?~o~d ~e pie~ m prov~ a copy of 6~e R~ord ro co~e[ for ~y interested mmmp~i~. M_r. Alexander Pirnie April 8, 1996 Page 3 = i~jncprr~c~ as a mar~ of law because :i~ failed m fotlow~ Sanzone v. Gao. s~pari,~ ?aXd as mentioned eariie~ iS of rio.p~ecedenfial value~' ..Additionally, as we shall see, the Aflmlfic Inland decision ~ ~n direca comzadimion with specific: l~.ws ar~ regulatiem enacted by New York,s leg/slature and 'Department of State which al/ow for the careful dejection of code admlnisl:md0n, and, in ~ighr of recent clarifications of antitrust law, the decision is outdated. .~l of the antitrust attac~ a~t 'elec~cat inspection~rdinan~s we have seen cite ro the A~lantic-fnland case for. supporz, t:I~wever~ ~ese atmc~ ~gl~[p~;mennon the~exisrence of the conrrolling Sanzone case as we~ a~ the subsequent e. mctmenz of N&w York Stare Regulations confmxai~g tha~ a~ muzucq~aliry may de!e~*~:,~cal m.xpecuon ~urhonty co qualmed enunes. ( See eg ~9 N?C,RR ~44..4.):~. Seco~nd~y, rhes~ ~rtaCl~s.over~ook~ the facr~ that in the th/rreen years which haye pasaec[ s/ncc ..the mlana~c:fnland.':.decision ~ere trove been signffiCunt c~mrifications in antitrust law whict~ reinforce the fact rtmt under the store acuon imm~miry doctrine, these mummpa/electrical inspection ordinances are,exem~. ~ ::rom the annrrusz laws. .~s yon a~zy~:,recatl from. our pre~iotm miwce~ concerning this issue, [ocat governmenm are immune from damage ¢t~,under the ~nr/trlmt ~ws. Scs Local Goverxmaent Anutrust Act 15 U.S.C. Sections 34--36. Se~uon oS(a) provides: No damages, interest on damages, costs, or a~orney's fees may be recovered under sec~on t.5, ~_5a or t5c of r~is ~kle from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity. Along these lines, the United States Supreme Court h~nded down a decision in 1991 in Ci~ of Columbia v. Omni OUrdoorAdverrising, £~ic. 499 U.S. 365. Ill S.CL 1344. 113 L.Ed. 2d 382 11991) rhat. dealr with the specific issue of the antitrust hmnunirv of local =overnmenrs. Of course, the Arlan~c-£niartd case did not address rbis more rec-enr development m anrkrusr law and thus. any discussion of the present day annrrusr knplications of these municipal e!ecrmcal inspeczion ordinances rtmr does not Nciude the City. of Coiurabia case is incomplete and misleading. r.m Ci~ of Columbia. the United Staies Supreme Court afl'mined tharmumcipaiiries will receive immunirq, from federal armkrdsr taws when they act according to clearly expressed sram policy that author~,ves ~e~ action [o~en role.mod ro as ~?arker. irmxmni~f' after the leading case Parker ~. Brown. 3i7 U.S. 54i (t9a3)]. State aurhor/zar/on for mUmcmai ordLnances ~epufizmg rAe New York Board eieca-ical resistors ~s found, among other places. [n New York Mr. Alexander Pirdie April 8, 1996 Page zt State's Executive Law Section 370 (thc New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Bu'flding Code Act), Town Law Section 138 ("Building Impector') and the New York Code of Rules and Regulations. 19 NYCRR d44. Tals particular rega~/adon (19 N~CRR ~.44.4), promulgated according to section 381 of the Uniform Fire PrevenUon and Build'rog Code Act by the Secretary of Stare, stores: (a) where after July 1, !987, an entity charged with or accotmmbte for admini~rrauon and erfforcement of the Un/form Code relies upon the contracte~ for setwices of an individual, parmemhip, business corporation or similar finn for the principal part of an adminlsrration and enforcement program, it shall satis~ itsel~ rlmt any such provider has qualifications comparable to those of an individual who has met the requirements of Part 434 of rNs Titte. Therefore. there is rm question that New York law perrmts municmaliries to appoint private persons as eiecrrical inspectors, and it is undisputed that the Cb/el Impecr~or an(i duly designated inspectors of the not-for-profit New York Board meet or exceed alt applicable qtmlifications. The real d'ma~eemenr that certain persons have expressed with the New York Board electrical mspecuon ordinances is over the issue of a municipality's excinsive authorization of the New York Board as electrical inspector. The CiD] of Coiurn~i,7 d~ision laid ro mst any sp~ulation tha~ m order ro enjoy Par/ret Lrnmunky, the cleariy expressed sram policy nmst include express authority ro suppress competition: The Supreme Court stated: "We nave rejected the conteEtion [bat r~is requirement can be met only if the delegating stature explicitly permits the displacement of competition. (See ~Jat!ie v. Eau C~zire. ¢7~. U.S. 34, 4142 (1985); It is enough, we have held. if suppression of competiuon is the ~fores~able result" of what the statute authorizes. (Id. ar 42). Cirv of Coiurabia. ar 5. The dissent in Ci~/ oJ~ Cotur~ia observed mar the Court was adopfmg % sig_rfiF~cant enlargement of :be sram action exemntion'. The dissent also noted r~ar the South Carodna ~ sramms involved in rlmt case ~'[did] not an~ciDare any state po[my m displace compe~tion with econormc regulation in any line )f commerce or in any specific industry". The South Carolina ~mmres.were expressly adopted m promote the "health_ safe~w, morals or the general welfare of me :omnmn/ry." (Id. at ti FN3) Mr. Alexander Pirrfie Aor/1 8, I996 Page 5 The New, York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.'Act -(Execuuve Law Section 370; er. seq.), which provides the statutory authority for the delegation of municipal power [o private persons rd perform elecn'/cal /nspectiom. provides much more explick anthonzation for the suppression of competition r/ma did the .South Carolina statures in City of Columbia. Sirrfitar rd thc b-a~c Mtenro~he South Carol/nm stat-me,.the Uniform Fire Prevention 'm~inry rd persons, 371. But the present Isrew York Act goes * finds thor a.problem of the was ~a tack of and enfozce~[ ~of~e rd adminisrer :o thc rrai~in§ See Exec'ativ~ in th,e,r~o~ of,~e~Suprem~e. Courr foreseeable Code Ac~. CONCLUSION rm summary, the laws and re=inflations of New York clearly provide thai k is the pubtlc policy of New York Stare rd a~/ow municipalities m appoint a pr/yore person m perform eiecrrical inspecuon se,vices m ensure amform compliance with building codes. A mumcipaliry which deputizes the New York Board inspectors as the exclusive electrical insoecrors in rlmr jurisdiction is nor in violation of either the Sherman Antinmsr Act, (the federal Iow), or the Donnetly Act. [rs New York Stare comxerparr. The Ci~. of Color, ia decision by We Supreme Court has confirmed that laws and r%m. flanons such as these will be liberally consrrue~ rd at/ow for exclusive and andcompenrive results and will receive Parker ~mmuni~ from the federal antitrust laws. The murdcipai ordinances would also be found outside rbe scooe of the Donneily Act bemuse they are ~ proper exercise ,f the police power of the municipality which is specifically encouraged by We sram [egismmre. (Executive Law. Section 371 2d~ ~. Alexander Pimie April 8, 1996 Page 6 We would be pleased to discuas any asp~r of this flzrther with you or with counsel for any concerned municipality. Very, t:rtdy yours BIGHAM ENGLAR JONES & HOUSTON Donald T. RaYe, Jr. Timothy P. Lemon DTR:pr THE RrEW YOP~ BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS '~ . 85 JOHN STREET ~V'YORK N.Y. 100~8 April 12, 1996 (212) 227-8700 .Tean ~. Cochran Sou~old,. ' : ~ntion that an entity known as "Electrical Inspectors Inh.~ has ~ certain municipalities to utilize their ~e~ices fn-m, Abar~e, Balkan, Colav~ra ~g Conum. T J ~P, 'tO write to m, micipal official~ on Long Island. What prompm our concern is the fact that they have alleged Jhat o~rdimnces ~ to which the New York Board of F~re Underwriters rnake~ electrical .u~p~ e~ao .ns am~ .ffi~ inequitab an contrary to the best mte, ests of your commumry T ese t6 uy u ounded. ' · ,. To,~p~0rC ~e~.r ¢ontentmn that. the ordinances arc "JJle~al~ they refer ~o a decision by a "' '~ "~ ~ .... ~ ' C;;~!~D;'. ' ,,c.~_~ · ,, B~,.c.~,.¢. New York, and ~ao~e the fact that in ~972 our ~hest coum tha New ,., ¢ ..~.,.~ ~.,...r .... kppe~is, specmcall¥ and conclumvel¥ ruled ~J~t these ord~znces' are ¢~lst~"~nd, a, l~W~Uex=cise of a municipatky's police power, ,, +~,. ;yfa~naYe had,the rn~,tter r, esearched by our own lawyers, B~ghsm Englar Jones a Housrom and aa goa~m!~,see from their opnnon l~trer which m enclosed, the Broome County ctemsmn m i~orr~c[~.~ has ~l>solute,ly no precede~mal value. Furthermore, a subsequent ruling from the ~ - ) ![b~ /I'' -:,i' '~ : ~ · ' ' - ' , · . , ' United S~ Suprii~e Cou~ establishes conctumvely that swmlar ordinances are. not ~mlauYe of any laws.' Ba~ed upgn the advice, of counsel. We are. satisfied that the New YoEk Board's' activities are no~ "i!~',~ contended by Electrical ~pecmrs Inc,, and we will continue ro provide el~cm,cal im-ae~O~servmes to mumc!palmes that wmh us to do so I have authorized Donald T Jones & Houston to discuss 'any aspect of their oninion with your attor~lL'yf i~ they should wmh to do so. Ap ~foI!::Electrical' Inspectors Inc. 's contention that the Board's activities are N nequitable" and "conugrY ro the best, interests of your community' ~e thirk that they mi~erceive ~e function and purpo~ of life safety, co,de compliance ~aspecdons. k would appear self-evident that 5n instances where a mUmcipality has decided ro rely upon an outside agency r,o perform electrical inspec~ous rather than ac~, training and maintainiug irs own stuff of qualified inspecrors~ there should be uniformitT, the outside agency should have unquestionable cmdentlais, and not be mouvated ar all by profit. In this latter respem. a profir~afven inspector would be less inciine~ re spend the rime at an Luspection sire necessary. to fully inspect the installation, As another example, once a violation is noted, the inspector is required to revisk the installation (ar no additional charge) to determine whether the violation has been corrected. Therefore, a profit motive would present an inherent conflict of interest for a safety inspector, particularly if the inspector were a shareholder or parmer in the commercial entity socking to make a profit on the job. By contrast, the New York Board inspectors are salaried, have no interest m profits and hence no motive to rush through an inspection and overlook violations. As you may or may not be aware, the New York Board of Fire Underwriters was created by an act of the New York State Legislature in 1867 as "a body politic and corporate' ro erdst in perpetuity. It is a non-profit organization dedicated exclusively m the public safety, and irs operating deficit ~ 5~.m-d~ by the ~arance ip~nst~y. Our Burean of.Elecwicity makes electrical inspections throughout the state and datos back to the days of Thomas Edison. who actually came ro the New York Board for approval of the first electrical system installed in Manhattan. Over the years, New York Board personnel have been inswamental in the promulgation of ~ National Electric Code, and our people continue to serve on safety advisory and code malting panels on a nationwide bas~s. Although rich in tradition and experience in the field of electrical safety, our nor-for-profit stares does not leave us with the funds which would be necessary, to advertise, lobby or otherwise comoere in a ~marketplace' for electr/cal/nspec*3ons, tn fact. as un-American and pol/ticatly incorrect as ir may sound to the uninitiated, we do nor believe that k would be prudent for any municipalky charged w/th the protection of its citizens r.o allow for the creation of a "m~r~etplace' for electrical safety code compliance, any more than there is or should be a "marketplace" for the uulform performance of other building code inspections, health insnections, police services, fire services, or judicial services. Thus. when Elecrricai Inspectors Inc.'s attorney says in his mass mailing that residents "must be allowed a choice of not only qualified electricians but a choice of qualified electrical/nspection companies" we think that ho'is simply demonstrating his commercial client's nnsperception of the role of an individual charged with the responsibility of making a safety inspection. Clearly, an electric/an hav/ng his work inspected should not be able to "Choose" who his safety code compliance inspector will be. In summary,, we are confident that from a Iegai sumdpoint our inspections are entirely proper. From a public safety standpoint, we think rilat ir would be irresponsible m ~rsake un/fortuity and create a commercial marketplace for r. he selection of electrical inspectors. A~ always, we would be pleased m answer any inquiries you may have. All of our ¢ersonnel look forward to continuing ro protect the lives and prope.~zy of~e citizens of .'.his store. Sincerely, Alexander Pa'me. President CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 12~12/g6 PRODUCER FRENKE[. & CO., I1~. ~23 ~LLIAM; STREE? NEW YORK, N;¥ 10038 2905 NE~ YORK: BOARD OF FIRE UNBERW~ i ~ERs 85 JOHN; ST,REET NEW YoRK NY 10038 COVFRAGES TH.S!S .OCEP:'.' Y ilAl'T~ ' =Oi .C G.~O: TI.IlS CERTIFICATF IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF.INFORMATION ONL~ AND, CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HO/-D~! TH!S CERTIFICATE Oo~[ NOT~ ~ENO,: EXTEND OR ALTER THE:GOVE~kGE AFFORDED B~ ~HE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANY COMPANY CGMPANY , c~P~N ES A~O~DiNG COVERAGE Har~or~ i!~sUrance Co, National U~ioni Fir= Rel:iance ins. Co. of II1,. RODUCT -CGMR.OR ooo0o A ~ ' ~CL~IM~ MAD~,OCCUR lOUUNLC2104 12/31/g6 12/31/g7 P~S~AL &~V INJURY $ 1000000' O~ER~ & CONTRACTOR S ~ROT ~CH QCCUR~E~CE S 1000000 ~X X,. C,~ · U [NCL, ~RE DAMAGE (A"7 one fire) $ 50000 A , X ANY A~TO lOUENLC1816 12/31/96 12/31/97 1000000 GARAG;LIABILtTY A~O ONLY: EA ACCIDENT $ ~ *N~ AUtO 0~ ~.*. AUTO 0.~: EXCESS LI~IL~ EACH OCCURRENCE $ 250000~0 UMB~LLA FORM BE9321035 12131/96 12/31/97 AGGREGATE $ 25000000 / OTHER TH~N UMBRELLA FORM C Professional ' NPG149979400 5/27/96 5/27/97 $3,000,000 Per Liability j Occurrence/ A~re~ate Town of Sbu*hold is included as additional insured as respects the General Liability insurance while NYBFU is ac~ing as i~s agent 10007 (212) 312-7~68 CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE LrNDERWRITER (A NY CORP) 85 JOHN ST NEW YORK NY 10038 t~CEtVED JAN 1 7 1997 Sout~o{d Town Qe~ POLICY NUMBER 1031 430-0 DATE 12/31/96 CSRTI~CATENUMBER 894-680 PERIOD COVEREDBYTHISCERTIFICATE 12/31/96 TO 12/31/98 POLICYHOLDER NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITER (A NY CORP) 85 JOHN ST NEW YORK NY 10039 CERTIFICATE HOLDER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICYHOLDER NAilED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY NO. 1031 430-0 UNTIL 12/31/98 , COVERING THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION OF THIS POLICYHOLDER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK WORK- ERS' COMPENSATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IF SAID POLICY IS CANCELLED, OR CHANGED PRIOR TO 12/31/98 IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AFFECT THIS CERTIFICATE, 5 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH CANCELLATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER ABOVE. NOTICE BY REGULAR MAIL SO ADDRESSED SHALL BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROVISION. U-26.3 AOOl'.l CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE- aA . ,.,.,,.a,., -i 12/12/g§ PROOCCCR THIS CERTIFICATE I~ ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION - ONI~ AND CONFERS: NO RIGHTS UPON ,THE CERTIFICATE FRENKEL &~ CO.,~ INC. 2905 HOLDER. THiS CERT1FICATE'DOES~OT AMEND, EXTEND OR 12'3 W*I Li~iA~' S¥~E:E~r ' ~ ..... ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED aY THE.POLICIES a~ow~*~ N~ ~0~RK ~ N~~ ~10038 ~ cOMPANIESAFFO~ING CO COMPANY ' " - - A Hartford Insurance, Co, INSURED C~PANY N~ YORK BOARD OF FIRE B National Union Fire UNDERWR I TERS COMPANY 85 JOHN STREET C Reliance Ins, Ce. of I~1. NEW YORK NY 10038 COMPANY I D COVERAGES A ~::~:~ I CLA[MS UAD~ OCCUR 10UUNLC2104 12/31/06 12/31/07 PERSONAL ['ADV INJURY $ ~-1000000 ',X,r,. C ,t~ U;~[NC'L. . 50000 A ~ ANYAUTO 10UENLC1816 12/31196 12/31107 "~ 1000000 ~ H~ED AUT~ R~EIVED BODILY ~Jg~Y GARAGELIAB~ITY ~Uf~ TO~ Cj~ · AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ C Professional NPG149979400 5/27/96 5/27/97 $3,000,000 Per Liability Occurrence/ Town of Southold is included as additional insured as respects ~he General Liability insurance while NYBFU is acting as its agent