Been there before, fuck em. Wait till you get out of there one day and meet some people from larger cities and realize "all those assholes back home are really just ignorant losers in the grand scheme of things"

even with my current landlord who is by far the best landlord anyone could ask for (completely absent but SUPER responsive when texted with an issue, only raised rent 1% per year), I still mail in checks via certified or priority mail and send her the tracking number ahead of time. Costs me like 2$ in postage, i can live with it.

Yea I'm not even remotely familiar with the 2023 revisions, my jurisdiction is still on 2017 lol. I suppose I better get a copy and start reviewing

Yes, as long as you use those products for their intended purpose as declared by the testing lab. This is not the listed usage for any of these devices, so it does not pass the sniff test

And you won't have to foot the fire damage bill yourself if they end up causing a housefire because they're NRTL approved

NEC 400.7 the 11 listed uses for flexible cable. This is definitely a code violation. Item 11 in the list is the one you want

11. Between an existing receptacle outlet and an inlet, where the inlet provides power to an additional single receptacle outlet. The wiring interconnecting the inlet to the single receptacle outlet shall be a Chapter 3 wiring method. The inlet, receptacle outlet, and Chapter 3 wiring method, including the flexible cord and fittings, shall be a listed assembly specific for this application.

This is just bad information. You create a device that causes a fire, you were not qualified to make it, you're getting held liable. It's really not that hard to understand, and I have personally met people whom this has happened to

They are not. Outlets are not intended to be used with lampcord and vise versa. Boxes housing an outlet are required to be properly secured. Whole thing is multiple NEC violations and UL listing violations in one small package

Nec absolutely does regulate what you can do with flexible cord, see my edit for the appropriate sections in the code book to reference. Number 11 on the list of appropriate uses in 400.7 is where you will find the exact wording that specifically prohibits this device.

And no it's not legal, not even in the slightest. you cannot wire electrical devices for use outside your own home without an electricians license or working directly under someone with one, full stop. you cannot create devices that intentionally violate the NEC, regardless of if they're for use in your own home or someone else's, full stop.

Edit: since I don't actually expect you to read 400.7, here's the part you should be concerned with

Between an existing receptacle outlet and an inlet, where the inlet provides power to an additional single receptacle outlet. The wiring interconnecting the inlet to the single receptacle outlet shall be a Chapter 3 wiring method. The inlet, receptacle outlet, and Chapter 3 wiring method, including the flexible cord and fittings, shall be a listed assembly specific for this application.

Lamp cord to receptacle = code violations unless

A) this is a temporary power setup that was installed by a qualified electrician

B) the entire assembly is submitted to UL and approved

Technically what op did is illegal and would make them criminally liable in my state for doing electrical work without a license (18 months, 10k fine), and civilly liable for five figures worth of willful building code violations. If the device actually caused a fire or bodily harm it gets way way worse

Point is: this behavior is dumb and shouldn't be encouraged on this subreddit. Teach people to do things the right way, don't encourage them to break laws and put others at risk.

Edit: anyone who wants to argue the code, go review chapter 3 of the NEC and show me where it lists flexible cord as an appropriate wiring method, or maybe go read the 11 accepted uses for flexible cord outlined in 400.7

the insurance commissioner in my state was clear he has zero say over anything regarding a federal insurance policy or the billing related to it. If it is the same in OP's state then they will probably politely direct OP to a better resource. so definitely worth reaching out regardless, but a complaint to them may be a waste of time

To be honest, once you hand everything to the commissioner you are entirely hands off unless they need more info from you. It was only a headache while I was researching state laws to see if I had any recourse for the out of network charges and balance billing, other than that just an annoyance really

Tbh, I need pretty regular health care visits and my SO is a healthcare provider. I learned this from watching her send the commissioner after insurers when they failed to pay her claims in a timely manner.

Then one day I went to see a new primary. He told me the office phlebotomist was in network, and she was not. I had to get the insurance commissioner involved twice in that case. The first time to have them inform the provider that surprise out of network charges are illegal in my state, and unless they have a signed release from me they and my insurance will have to pay the lab costs. Well my insurance agreed to... But only for the amount they would pay an in network provider. So then I had to get the commissioner involved a second time to have him inform the lab that balance billing me is also illegal and they will have to take that up with the provider and my insurance.....

Yea I never went back to that primary again after that shit show.

Reach out to your state insurance commissioner if you are not on federal insurance. Explain the situation and provide all written documentation and contact numbers from both quest and your insurer. Give it about 2 weeks and watch quest send you an apology email with a refund attached.

The state insurance commissioner can revoke or suspend a medical providers panel coverage, which would severely hamper Quest's business since they would be considered out of network by every insurer in the state afterwards