Pat

I understand your skepticism and without additional information I may also question that seem so far out in left field. Let me set this up for you to assist you in understanding what took place. NFPA was a defendant in the law suit. The case involved the McFrugal’s distribution center fire in New Orleans. If you look at the fire investigation reports published by the NFPA I am sure you will find it. The person testifying was designated by the association as the person to speak for the association. I believe this makes him more than just an anonymous employees. I believe this person’s name is Robert Solomon but not absolutely sure at this time. I understand he has been around NFPA for a number of years. The opinion he gave was that the standard in question did not cover all possible areas of coverage and the document was silent in addressing some specific types of protection.

You seem to want to make these discussions personal rather than factual. All you needed to do was to ask what case this involved and I would be more than happy to tell you. If you can find where I misrepresented the facts that NFPA did not consider the document a pre-engineered document and was silent as to addressing a method to protect some specific types of configurations, I will apologize to all that read this post. If I am not in error as to the NFPA making these two statements about one of their sprinkler standards will you openly apologize?

I will not suggest how a court will interpret these documents but you asked the question how did I interpret your question and I gave you my opinion and an explanation for that opinion. You can accept what I said or reject it, that is your right and I will never deny anyone the right to disagree. I also will not attempt to belittle them because of the differences of opinion. By the way the court never got to make a decision in the McFrugal case because of settlements but the attorneys thought well enough of the explanation given by the NFPA representative to believe they had no action against the NFPA because there could be no requirement that the document was more than suggest by the person giving the testimony.

Jim