If your association was thinking of buying insurance for owners per FS 718, hold on there –
1/20/09 Dear Florida Condo-Owners, Friends and Members,
The bill ( http://www.ccfj.net/PB09S714.html ) repealing the provision requiring condo owners to provide evidence of a currently effective policy of hazard and liability insurance has been filed. This was the provision in FS 718 that caused all the excitement:
FS 718.111(11)(g)2. The association shall require each owner to provide evidence of a currently effective policy of hazard and liability insurance upon request, but not more than once per year. Upon the failure of an owner to provide a certificate of insurance issued by an insurer approved to write such insurance in this state within 30 days after the date on which a written request is delivered, the association may purchase a policy of insurance on behalf of an owner. The cost of such a policy, together with reconstruction costs undertaken by the association but which are the responsibility of the unit owner, may be collected in the manner provided for the collection of assessments in s. 718.116.
The new bill -- H 419 + S 714 -- filed by Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff and Senator Dennis Jones will be effective July 1, 2009 -- if it passes the legislature. Thank you Representative Bogdanoff for keeping your promise!
Lines 155 - 165 will delete the provision that is causing such headaches!
Even if the statutes in the moment require such a policy, it's up to the association board to actually enforce this provision. The wording says: "the association may purchase a policy of insurance on behalf of an owner," meaning they can, but they don't have to.
So, how about using some common sense for about 6 month?
Warm Regards,
Jan Bergemann, President Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.http://www.ccfj.net/
http://www.ccfjedu.net/
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Legislators File Condo Owners Insurance Repeal Bill S 714/ H 419
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I hope the rewpeal is sucessful,
now to understand the intent?
If it's the law now and the association want's to not be binding to be on the opposite side of the law that may to protect the association must be to mean has the right to? protect the association, again legislators put us in a mandated position, yes wait it out and again hope the decision is right, and the appeal,becomes the law amended?
To my above comments I by my print could easily be a legislator, my print is also confusing to intent of meaning?
Thanks Elaine
Post a Comment