Hi All,
In another Post on this BLOG Lanny Howe poses a brilliantly written question and exposition on Condo Insurance. This Post will attempt to supply a response, if not an answer to Lanny’s Post.
-----
First of all let me make it clear:
First of all let me make it clear:
THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION.
-----
Lanny’s Post exposes incredible complexity in the new Insurance Law; this complexity is just starting to be vetted in the Courts of Florida, and I suspect that the Legislation will be modified soon. This leads me to the following statement:
Lanny’s Post exposes incredible complexity in the new Insurance Law; this complexity is just starting to be vetted in the Courts of Florida, and I suspect that the Legislation will be modified soon. This leads me to the following statement:
-----
All persons in UCO must STOP playing at being an Attorney. No one at UCO including Insurance “Guru” Gladstone is qualified or capable of dispositive analyses of some of the issues raised in the new Florida Condominium Insurance Statutes. In short, their opinions are no better than mine or yours.
All persons in UCO must STOP playing at being an Attorney. No one at UCO including Insurance “Guru” Gladstone is qualified or capable of dispositive analyses of some of the issues raised in the new Florida Condominium Insurance Statutes. In short, their opinions are no better than mine or yours.
-----
To give some feeling for the complexities of the issues at hand please read the following article, which shows that the “Experts” are in a state of controversy, how are we the Unit Owners to resolve the issues that even the “experts” find vexing, this article address just a small part of Lanny’s question; the actual law EG. HB-601 markup and FS 718 addresses every component of Lanny’s questions but given its arcane complexity, it might as well be written Hieroglyphics.
To give some feeling for the complexities of the issues at hand please read the following article, which shows that the “Experts” are in a state of controversy, how are we the Unit Owners to resolve the issues that even the “experts” find vexing, this article address just a small part of Lanny’s question; the actual law EG. HB-601 markup and FS 718 addresses every component of Lanny’s questions but given its arcane complexity, it might as well be written Hieroglyphics.
-----
Finally I suggest that each person, especially those on Boards of Administration Read the relevant Law as follows:
Finally I suggest that each person, especially those on Boards of Administration Read the relevant Law as follows:
-----
1) Advanced markup of HB 601 (excellent background on how we got to this point) :
1) Advanced markup of HB 601 (excellent background on how we got to this point) :
http://www.ccfj.net/PB08H601.html
-----
2) Actual final current Statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0718/ch0718.htm
-----
2) Actual final current Statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0718/ch0718.htm
-----
See Specifically - FS 718.111(11) Insurance (within the above reference)
See Specifically - FS 718.111(11) Insurance (within the above reference)
-----
“(11) INSURANCE.--In order to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the people of the State of Florida and to ensure consistency in the provision of insurance coverage to condominiums and their unit owners, this subsection applies to every residential condominium in the state, regardless of the date of its declaration of condominium. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage lower or stable insurance premiums for associations described in this subsection. “
“(11) INSURANCE.--In order to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the people of the State of Florida and to ensure consistency in the provision of insurance coverage to condominiums and their unit owners, this subsection applies to every residential condominium in the state, regardless of the date of its declaration of condominium. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage lower or stable insurance premiums for associations described in this subsection. “
-----
I must opine that the Legislature has fallen far short of the stated mark!!!
-----
Condo associations no longer responsible for personal property under new laws
REF: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/Jul/08/condo-associations-no-longer-responsible-personal-/
By I.M. STACKEL (Contact)
I must opine that the Legislature has fallen far short of the stated mark!!!
-----
Condo associations no longer responsible for personal property under new laws
REF: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/Jul/08/condo-associations-no-longer-responsible-personal-/
By I.M. STACKEL (Contact)
8:35 p.m., Tuesday, July 8, 2008
-----
What’s a condo owner to do?
On July 2, the Third District Court of Appeal overturned a Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Home declaration over who is responsible for insuring and maintaining association public areas, meaning anything outside one’s unit, such as lanai screen doors.
However, in the same week, Gov. Charlie Crist signed House Bill 601 into law.
-----
What’s a condo owner to do?
On July 2, the Third District Court of Appeal overturned a Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Home declaration over who is responsible for insuring and maintaining association public areas, meaning anything outside one’s unit, such as lanai screen doors.
However, in the same week, Gov. Charlie Crist signed House Bill 601 into law.
-
That legislation amended previous community association law on condo insurance, reconstruction after disaster, and condominium common expenses, according to David Muller, a Becker & Poliakoff attorney.
That legislation amended previous community association law on condo insurance, reconstruction after disaster, and condominium common expenses, according to David Muller, a Becker & Poliakoff attorney.
-
The Third District Court of Appeal overturned an administrative decision issued by a state agency, which ruled on a condominium association’s insurance responsibility for items located outside units, according to Katzman Garfinkel partner Donna Berger, who also heads up her law firm’s lobbying arm Community Advocacy Network.
The Third District Court of Appeal overturned an administrative decision issued by a state agency, which ruled on a condominium association’s insurance responsibility for items located outside units, according to Katzman Garfinkel partner Donna Berger, who also heads up her law firm’s lobbying arm Community Advocacy Network.
-
The Division of Florida Land Sales decision, which involved the condominium association of Costa del Sol, held that items, such as Jacuzzis, trellises and elaborate screen enclosures which were purchased and installed by individual unit owners are condominium property and must be insured by the association as a common expense under condo law, according to Berger.
The Division of Florida Land Sales decision, which involved the condominium association of Costa del Sol, held that items, such as Jacuzzis, trellises and elaborate screen enclosures which were purchased and installed by individual unit owners are condominium property and must be insured by the association as a common expense under condo law, according to Berger.
-
Senior Judge Alan R. Schwartz wrote in the Third District’s decision, that the consequence of the division’s decision was “... the utterly unfair one of making members of the association responsible for insuring property which they do not and cannot use, and from which they derive no benefit-indeed, in which they apparently have no insurable interest which would even permit their maintenance of valid insurance.”
Senior Judge Alan R. Schwartz wrote in the Third District’s decision, that the consequence of the division’s decision was “... the utterly unfair one of making members of the association responsible for insuring property which they do not and cannot use, and from which they derive no benefit-indeed, in which they apparently have no insurable interest which would even permit their maintenance of valid insurance.”
-
Judge Schwartz went on to say that the division’s distinction between inside and outside property could apply to a barbecue or even a lounge chair on a patio. That makes an association responsible for insuring anything outside the unit walls even though such burden would be illogical, Berger said.
Unlike the division’s Costa del Sol declaratory statement, the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision is binding law in Florida, and sets precedent throughout the state until another appellate court takes up the issue, Berger said.
Judge Schwartz went on to say that the division’s distinction between inside and outside property could apply to a barbecue or even a lounge chair on a patio. That makes an association responsible for insuring anything outside the unit walls even though such burden would be illogical, Berger said.
Unlike the division’s Costa del Sol declaratory statement, the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision is binding law in Florida, and sets precedent throughout the state until another appellate court takes up the issue, Berger said.
-
So, does the court’s opinion conflict in any way with HB 601?
The DCA opinion was based on law from 2006, but it doesn’t necessarily conflict with newly-enrolled legislation, said Katzman Garfinkel attorney John Bibish.
So, does the court’s opinion conflict in any way with HB 601?
The DCA opinion was based on law from 2006, but it doesn’t necessarily conflict with newly-enrolled legislation, said Katzman Garfinkel attorney John Bibish.
-
The new law is basically a codification of the Costa Del Sol decision, enabling associations to opt out of certain insurance and maintenance obligations, Bibish said.
Basically, “this is (all) good news to community associations,” Bibish said.
The new law is basically a codification of the Costa Del Sol decision, enabling associations to opt out of certain insurance and maintenance obligations, Bibish said.
Basically, “this is (all) good news to community associations,” Bibish said.
-
Yeline Goin, a co-director of the Community Association Leadership Lobby, the lobbying arm of Becker & Poliakoff, essentially agrees.
The Costa del Sol appellate decision held that items such as jacuzzis, trellises, and screen enclosures that were purchased, installed and used only by one unit owner are not the association’s insurance responsibility even if located outside of the unit boundaries, Goin said.
Yeline Goin, a co-director of the Community Association Leadership Lobby, the lobbying arm of Becker & Poliakoff, essentially agrees.
The Costa del Sol appellate decision held that items such as jacuzzis, trellises, and screen enclosures that were purchased, installed and used only by one unit owner are not the association’s insurance responsibility even if located outside of the unit boundaries, Goin said.
-
“That is the case under the new law (HB 601) as well,” Goin said.
On all policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2009, the association is responsible for insuring all portions of the condominium property as originally installed or replaced. The unit owners are responsible for insuring improvements or additions to the condominium property that benefit fewer than all unit owners.
“That is the case under the new law (HB 601) as well,” Goin said.
On all policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2009, the association is responsible for insuring all portions of the condominium property as originally installed or replaced. The unit owners are responsible for insuring improvements or additions to the condominium property that benefit fewer than all unit owners.
-
Therefore, under the new law, if an owner installs a jacuzzi on the balcony or encloses the balcony, those additions are the unit owner’s insurance responsibility, which is consistent with the Costa del Sol decision, Goin said.
Therefore, under the new law, if an owner installs a jacuzzi on the balcony or encloses the balcony, those additions are the unit owner’s insurance responsibility, which is consistent with the Costa del Sol decision, Goin said.
-
Becker & Poliakoff law partner Tamela Wiseman, Naples’ former vice mayor until her move to Sarasota, agreed.
“I don’t think it invalidates or directly conflicts with the new law,” Wiseman said.
Becker & Poliakoff law partner Tamela Wiseman, Naples’ former vice mayor until her move to Sarasota, agreed.
“I don’t think it invalidates or directly conflicts with the new law,” Wiseman said.
-
One thing all of the attorneys quoted agree on and were amused by: the tone of Schwart’z opinion.
Berger called it “scathing.” So did Wiseman.
“I loved the sarcasm of that (district court of appeal) opinion,” Wiseman said. It also demonstrates the contempt most judges have for condo disputes, Wiseman said
Posted By: Dave Israel
One thing all of the attorneys quoted agree on and were amused by: the tone of Schwart’z opinion.
Berger called it “scathing.” So did Wiseman.
“I loved the sarcasm of that (district court of appeal) opinion,” Wiseman said. It also demonstrates the contempt most judges have for condo disputes, Wiseman said
Posted By: Dave Israel
6 comments:
Excellent job as usual Dave.
I can not understand what this insurance articles about . I am also sure most or alot of people will not understand it also. Can this be explained in laymen terms? Or is it just me that does not understand? I just hope that it will not have go to court to be ironed out.
You people have a real problem with authority. Lanny got a ruling from the STATE, and doesn't believe it. What does he really want to know, how to get around the law ??
And you Dave, instead of giving a concise answer, you terrorize the people with reams of paper. How much is Levy paying you ??
Mr. Levy and/or Cenvill have no connection as to whether CV condo owners insure their individual units in accordance with the new state law. I'd assume he would WANT us to comply with the law so we can continue to thrive any pay the WPRF monthly payments.
Regarding Anonymous's comment saying "You people have a real problem with authority," I spoke with one person in the Insurance Commissioner's office. I did not get a "ruling." If you've ever called a government office and had someone advise you on something complicated and controversial, you know you can get an incorrect answer. I don't "want" this person's answer to be wrong; I only want to be as sure as I can be of what's right. I may call the Commissioner's office again, quoting the pertinent part of the law Dave gave us, to SEE if I get the same answer. Yes, the matter is complicated. I think Dave has done a great job of trying to explain what's what with the law and suggesting that we should not rush to conclusions as laypeople. Complicated things cannot always be explained in simple terms. You try, of course, but it can be hard, sometimes impossible. What Levy has to do with Dave's response, I cannot fathom. That sounds like a cheap shot, unworthy of the writer, to me.
Lanny Howe
You people just don't get it.
Racketeering is the commission of little crimes, intimidation, spreading fear,etc. so that someone gets a lot of money.(Levy) Pity the poor widow who is barely getting by, and her neighbor tells her that according to Dave ( and Dave must be right, look at all the words he prints) she has to pay more money or hire an attorney, what is she going to do?
Run to UCO/Levy. and guess what UCO/Levy is going to tell her. Pay the money or you will be evicted. And don't go to any governmental agency because then you're a whistle blower and Levy will sue you or Seacrest will harass you.
Stop complicating everybodies life so that you have power and Levy has money.
STOP IT...STOP IT...STOP IT !!!!
Post a Comment