condo insurance

2) An attempt to reverse the onerous and invasive Insurance requirements, failed. So the law remains: all Unit Owners must, upon request of the Board, provide proof of Insurance, and if they refuse, the Association may Force Place a policy, and Lien the Unit to effect Collection of the premium.

OK...so I understand we need private insurance on our condo...how much?? I currently have a policy for $20,000 (2,000 loss assessment payable to the association). My insurance agent told us that was adequate coverage...I know some associations are enforcing a minimum of $35,000 coverage...our unit isn't assessed for that much! Is there are "legal" coverage amount...I believe my agent not the Condo Board!

Insurance Meeting

What info came out of the June 9 Meeting that would be helpful to unit owners? I was unable to attend .
Thanks, Mike

Mitigation Report

Is it worthwhile ( save money)for a unit owner to get a Mitigation Report for his HO Insurance Co., if he does not have hurricane shutters ? This is assuming his Assoc. buildings are all in good repair with fairly new roofs etc. Has anyone had experience with any particular Mitigation Co. , they would recommend?

INSURANCE COVERAGE OF AIR CONDITIONERS

Hi all,
The following question comes from a CV Unit Owner by Email:
-----------------
In an item I saw in the Palm Beach Post. In the Wednesday's edition Page 16D [3/11/2009], an article by Gary Poliakoff ("Condo Consultant") - states:

"...under owner's 'HO6' policy. (Please note that effective Oct. 1, 2008, the law changed to delete air conditioning units, regardless of where located, from unit owner coverage and add them to the association's coverage)..."
-
I think Dan may have spoken about this subject in a recent open Delegate Assembly meeting "fleetingly",
wherein, I believe, he implied that the government legal/Tallahassee types were talking about the compressor unit outside the Association building, but not the air handling system internal to the unit owner's inside area. Further, the question of the window a/c units that "hang" outside the building wall of each unit owner's condo was a further question in Dan's mind if I read (heard) him correctly.

Can you find out what the correct and current "scoop" is on this subject?
----------------
In response, I shall quote sections of FS-718 be aware that this is not a Legal opinion; but simply researched information:

-
718.111 The association.—
-
(f) Every hazard insurance policy issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2009, for the purpose of protecting the condominium shall provide primary coverage for:-

-

1. All portions of the condominium property as originally installed or replacement of like kind and quality, in accordance with the original plans and specifications.-

-

2. All alterations or additions made to the condominium property or association property pursuant to s. 718.113(2).-

-

3. The coverage shall exclude all personal property within the unit or limited common elements, and floor, wall, an ceiling coverings, electrical fixtures, appliances, water heaters, water filters, built-in cabinets and countertops, and window treatments, including curtains, drapes, blinds, hardware, and similar window treatment components, or replacements of any of the foregoing.
----------
OK! Here is where the interpretation comes in:

-
1) The Air conditioners, both the compressors and the interior air handlers were indeed originally installed.
- or
2) Constitute an alteration to the property; EG: AC Units punched thru walls and hanging out on the Common Element.
-
3) The AC units are no longer specifically excluded, as they were in past versions of the Statute.

-
Therefore, it is my opinion that the Association must insure the Air conditioners, both the indoor and outdoor components against CASUALTY loss.

-
No doubt there will be a number of comments on this matter, as there is undoubtedly some interpretive ambiguity in the new Statute.

-
Perhaps Dan Gladstone will grace us with his input?

-

It should be further noted that the Insurance Statute is under study for changes in the Florida Legislature. So, some parts of the law may be changed this year.

-
Dave Israel

State Farm No Longer Floridian

In other pictures, click the link:

LINK

Condo Assoc. Insurance value assessment

Does anyone know what value UCO has placed on 3 bldg. 24 unit Assoc. for Insurance replacement value and deductible purposes is ?
Mike

Legislators File Condo Owners Insurance Repeal Bill S 714/ H 419

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/

INSURANCE 2009

HB 601 Compliance

I can not find any information for Condo owners compliance with hazard and liability insurance provisions for 2009, thank you for your kind attention.
---
The query above came from a CV Resident by way of the “Contact Us” channel in the BLOG Sidebar. It is of interest to all of our Unit Owners.
---
Identifying information has been redacted for reasons of privacy. All, highlighting in red below is mine,
---
It is strongly recommended that all BLOGGERS read the entire Insurance statute:

FS 718.111 (11) (g)

Dave Israel
-----
First I have extracted the originating language from HB 601, upon which the Statute is founded:
---
REF: http://www.ccfj.net/PB08H601.html
Commencing Circa line 43…..Requiring that an

association require each owner to provide evidence of a current policy of hazard and liability insurance upon request; limiting the frequency with which an association may make such a request; authorizing an association to purchase coverage on behalf of an owner under certain
circumstances; providing for the collection of the costs of such a policy; providing responsibilities of the unit owner and association with regard to reconstruction work and associated costs after a casualty loss;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is the relevant extract from FS 718:
REF:
---
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0718/ch0718.htm

FS 718.111 (11) (g) 1., 2., 4.

(g) Every hazard insurance policy issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2009, to an individual unit owner must contain a provision stating that the coverage afforded by such policy is excess coverage over the amount recoverable under any other policy covering the same property. Such policies must include special assessment coverage of no less than $2,000 per occurrence. An insurance policy issued to an individual unit owner providing such coverage does not provide rights of subrogation against the condominium association operating the condominium in which such individual's unit is located.
---
1. All improvements or additions to the condominium property that benefit fewer than all unit owners shall be insured by the unit owner or owners having the use thereof, or may be insured by the association at the cost and expense of the unit owners having the use thereof.
---
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.
---
4. Unit owners are responsible for the cost of reconstruction of any portions of the condominium property for which the unit owner is required to carry casualty insurance, and any such reconstruction work undertaken by the association shall be chargeable to the unit owner and enforceable as an assessment pursuant to s. 718.116. The association must be an additional named insured and loss payee on all casualty insurance policies issued to unit owners in the condominium operated by the association.
----------------------
I hope this answers the question.
---
Dave Israel

GIVING A CONCISE ANSWER

Hi All,
In another Post on Insurance, A Nony Mouse (Nov 17, 2008 9:08:00 AM),
commented, in part, as follows:

"And you Dave, instead of giving a concise answer, you terrorize the people with reams of paper. How much is Levy paying you ??
"

In my 30+ years of Research, Collection and Analysis of Strategic and Tactical Intelligence, I have never heard anyone describe "Information" as "Terrorizing"

Not everything can be reduced to simplistic pap! For me to give a "Concise Answer" requires me to give my opinion on the meaning and interpretation of an ambiguously written set of Insurance Statutes.

As previously noted, I am NOT an Attorney and I do not intend to play at being one.

I did my best to research and present relevant Statute; it is for the reader to construe according to his/her wits the meaning and application of these Laws and Decisions.

As always, we are at liberty to consult an Attorney in the Field for a Competent Professional Legal Opinion, on the extant issues, perhaps the most prudent approach for UCO to pursue.

As always in these matters: Do not Shoot the Messenger"

Dave Israel
Information Terrorist!!!

PS:
As for the part about Mr. Levy paying me, that is an utterly absurd question, unworthy of response; but for the record, NO!!

INSURANCE - THE SCHWARTZ RULING

Hi All,
Please take the time to read the following reference, for the moment it is Florida Law:
--------------------------

"In sum, it is bad enough to compare apples and oranges; it is much worse to find that apples are oranges. The ruling below is Reversed."

REF:

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D06-3113.pdf

Dave Israel

Is Condo Homeowner's Insurance Mandated by Tallahassee or Not?

For the past three years I have been under the impression that homeowner’s insurance for condo owners was required by the State of Florida and have told our condo owners so.

As I understood it, however, there was no enforcement mechanism in place to make owners buy this insurance.

Now, as I have understood it, by vote of the Florida legislature and signed into law by Governor Crist this year, an extra, special $2000 coverage has been required. This $2000 coverage goes to help meet the deductible (should it be applied) on an association’s overall insurance coverage---our association’s overall coverage, of course, being the one arranged for by UCO on essentially the exteriors of our buildings.

There was more that I understood, too. First, that the legislature had changed the law regarding the overall insurance on condos, so that if hurricane damage exceeded 2% of the total value of our buildings, we could collect for all the damage WITHOUT a deductible being applied; but that if the damage amounted to less than the 2% figure, the deductible WOULD be applied.

The latter situation was remedied by the $2000 legislation. As complicated as it might seem, the shortfall on the overall insurance coverage would be met by the combined $2000 coverages of all the condo owners on their homeowner’s insurance policies.

Secondly, I understood that there was an enforcement mechanism in place, so that if a condo owner did not purchase homeowner’s insurance (with the $2000 coverage), the condo association could buy it for him, bill him for the cost, and if payment were not forthcoming, put a lien on his property.

This seemed to open a whole can of worms (a “nightmare” was the way one of our board members described it). It seemed to promote an adversarial relationship between the board and owners who did not wish to have homeowner’s coverage.

It meant requiring every owner to submit a copy of the homeowner’s Declaration Page to the board every year. It meant raising the hackles of owners, possibly even leading to litigation, over the requirement that the association be "an additional named insured and loss payee" on the homeowner's policy. It meant having to bill owners for coverage purchased by the association for their units. It meant the board having to go through the hassle of having an attorney apply liens. And it meant, perhaps worst of all, the association’s having to pay out of pocket for noncompliant owners until, hopefully---but perhaps not until years later when many owners had moved on---the association collected on the liens. A little arithmetic showed that if even only 4 of our 26 owners were noncompliant, the association might have to come up with 4 x $400 = $1600 PER YEAR. Obviously, the thing to do was press for 100% compliance.---Could our board simply not apply the “enforcement mechanism”? No, I was told, this was inadvisable, because we would be failing in our fiduciary duty to make all owners pay equally for the relief to the overall insurance’s deductible.

Having thought I had learned all this and passed it on to our board, NOW I HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENT. An owner told me he had contacted his former homeowner’s insurance company and was told the special $2000 coverage was mandatory only IF he had homeowner’s coverage, BUT THAT HOMEOWNER'S ITSELF WAS NOT MANDATORY. I called Tallahassee and spoke with someone in the Insurance Commissioner’s office. Yes, she told me, this owner was correct in what he told you: it is not mandatory for all condo owners to have homeowner’s insurance—UNLESS the condo board has voted to make it mandatory.---Is this true? Is it true that the board has this choice? If so, it is the first I have heard of it, and all I can say is that it has certainly not been emphasized. But I think (if true) it SHOULD be emphasized. My point is this: Associations should first be told what the facts are, clearly and unambiguously. If the law itself is ambiguous and perhaps open to interpretation, UCO should tell us THIS. Then, and only then, should associations be told what UCO ADVISES; and the two should never become mixed up.---What are the facts about this? Can anyone tell me authoritatively? And how can I get a copy of the pertinent legislative documents without their being “condensed” and/or added to with UCO remarks, no matter how well intended? Must I talk with an attorney to get straight on all this?

Lanny Howe
Sheffield N

Call Report UPDATE

CALL Alert for September 10, 2008-Florida Insurance Commissioner Orders State Farm to Refund $120 Million to Policyholders for Unpaid Mitigation Discounts

Dear Edward Black of Chatham B Condominium Association, Inc.,

Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty yesterday announced that he has ordered State Farm Florida to issue credits or refunds totaling $120 million to current and former policyholders who did not receive discounts for making their homes stronger against hurricanes.

State Farm has identified about 98,000 current or former policyholders to whom it will provide credits or refunds. The persons entitled to the refunds include single-family homeowners, condominium unit owners, and condominium associations.

Current policyholders entitled to the refund will receive a credit to the renewal premium. Former policyholders entitled to the refund will receive a check. The refund must include 7 percent interest on the amount due to each policyholder until paid.

This is certainly good news for owners and associations who took affirmative action to strengthen their homes and condominiums against hurricanes. Many owners and condominium associations have installed hurricane shutters and/or hurricane resistant windows and doors and should have received credits from their insurance companies. If you have not yet taken steps to install hurricane protection, we strongly urge you to consider doing so. If you are an association and are confused about your ability to install hurricane shutters or other hurricane protection, please contact your community association attorney.

If you are a condominium association, keep in mind that a new law was passed during the 2008 Legislative Session that may give your condominium association additional options for installation of hurricane shutters and other hurricane protection.

Sincerely,Yeline Goin and David Muller, Co-Executive DirectorsCommunity Association Leadership Lobby (CALL)

HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUM DISCOUNTS

Hi all,
Does the word "mitigation" mean anything to you?

It refers to actions taken by your Association or by you the Unit Owner to Mitigate (reduce) potential damage from a Windstorm event.

Be aware that you may rate a significant discount on your Homeowners Insurance Premium, if your building has a new roof or if you have installed Hurricane shutters or Code compliant High Impact Glass.

Start here:

https://apps.fldfs.com/WindMitigation/

Go to this Site; select your Company name in the window to obtain the required form/information needed to apply for the discount.

If your Insurance companies name is not on the list, call them and ask for the information on their Windstorm Mitigation program.

Hurricane Protection Pays:

Choose your company to find out how your investment in hurricane-resistant building techniques can save you money and protect your family against storm damage.

The discounts insurers must provide for mitigation improvements on your home are currently submitted to the Office in percent ranges.

For example, the discount for installing approved shutters to windows may be listed by your insurance company as 20% - 60%.

The reason for the range is because many factors may affect the actual discount.

A house on a barrier island with shutters may not get the same discount as a house with shutters in the middle of the state.

Commissioner McCarty found these ranges unacceptable and of no real value for consumers wanting to make informed decisions about hardening their homes (and reducing their premiums).

He proposed a Rule in January 2006, which was adopted by the Financial Services Commission, requiring companies to calculate exact discounts for every one of their policyholders, based on the location, age, and construction techniques of every home.

This Rule requires insurers to begin using this new policyholder-specific information on March 1, 2007. Remember, the current discount data is given in ranges; policyholder-specific information will be available next March. Please note: The insurance companies provided the discount information below.

While the Office analyzes the data submissions for completeness and reasonability, the data has not been formally audited or verified.



Dave Israel

INSURANCE AND THE WINDS OF CHANGE

Hi all,

At the Delegate Assembly meeting of March 7th. 2008 Dan Gladstone discussed a Court decision placing certain Limited Common Element casualty losses on the Unit Owner or the Association.

Dan characterized this decision as a Direct Reversal of prior law.

The following URL is the decision in question; it was rendered by Administrative Law Judge John Van Laningham. I would suggest that while it is the current state of the Law; it is highly likely to be appealed; and furthermore, related legislation is in the offing!

http://www.katzkorr.com/pdfs/DBPRFountains.pdf

And here is a Sun Sentinel article about the issue:.
Dave
-----------------------------------------------
Legislation may clarify condo claims

By CHRIS GUANCHE Forum Publishing Group
February 21, 2008

Still reeling from the havoc of past hurricane seasons, condo associations soon may be given a specific way in which to deal with insurance claims after the next session of the Florida Legislature, which starts March 4.

The new legislation will be introduced by state Sen. Ted Deutch, D- Boca Raton, and would require associations to pay for every common element they insure.

The new legislation also directly addresses a policy reversal by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which changed the way the department interpreted two landmark cases in condo law.

A ruling handed down in the case of the Fountains South condominium in January by Administrative Law Judge John Van Laningham of the Division of Administrative Hearings was guided in part by an earlier ruling in the case of the Plaza East condominium in Broward County, which declared that associations were responsible for covering any damages to common elements that they insure.

Citing the earlier ruling from the Plaza East case, the department directed the Fountains South association to pay for the repairs.

The Fountains South case decided whether the association should cover the costs for balcony screens that were damaged during Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Although only the balcony is covered by the association, a unit owner filed a complaint with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to make the association pay for damage to a screen enclosure that the unit owner installed.

Coverage conflicts are common because of the changing nature of condominium documents, said Kenneth Direktor, an attorney with the law firm Becker & Poliakoff, which is helping to write the new legislation.

Direktor said that over time, associations began insuring elements such as drywall, windows and sliding doors, which the documents didn't necessarily identify as common elements, making it difficult to understand exactly what each association would cover.

Now associations must follow only what is in their individual documents."What you had is the association insuring these things, but under the documents the owner is being obligated to reconstruct them if they were damaged," Direktor said.

Many cases involving damage repairs have been decided by the department's interpretation of those two landmark cases, Direktor said, and the reversal by Laningham could open a veritable Pandora's Box of new cases.

"Do we have to go back and reconcile and assess the owners whose units were damaged, and reimburse the people who paid their shares, when they shouldn't have been charged those shares?" Direktor said.

While the new legislation does require associations to pay for whatever elements they insure, an association can also vote to opt out and have unit owners insure certain elements on their own.

The legislation also includes an exemption that makes owners responsible for damage to common elements caused by their own negligence, such as forgetting to put up shutters during a hurricane.

Deutch believes the legislation would make the situation more fair for owners."Improvements that are installed by the unit owner are covered by the unit owner's policy," Deutch said. "That way the unit owners don't all share the cost of damage to one particular screen that had been installed by one specific unit owner."

A VISITOR; AN INSURANCE TALE

A Visitor

Most of our readers are familiar with items placed before them on this BLOG. Perhaps, you would be surprised to learn that I just had a visitor, complaining of my criticism of the poor judgment of the Operations Committee in coping with the insurance “Tsunami” spoken about at the Delegate Assembly.

“Let’s be fair”, said the speaker, who criticized, at the Delegate Assembly, the much higher deductible for this Village, and other three Villages as well. He attempted to clearly lay all blame exclusively at the feet of WPRF. Admittedly, WPRF has some responsibility for the 8 1/2% deductible Zurich required. But being fair, what is their motivation to advocate when ALL DECISIONS rest solely with THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, a UCO Committee? WPRF does not collect one additional red cent, challenging rates for Residents of this Village even when our leadership has called them “THIEVES”. The millennium Agreement squarely places all responsibility at the feet of the Operations Committee to approve all expenditures for the fiscal year, prior to implementation! To be clear, the Operations team did nothing but APPROVE this contract and FAIL to PROVIDE THE SAFETY NET that would have reduced the deductible by 1,400,000.00, while they attempted to find a better solution. Unfortunately, their responses came in DECEMBER, well after the OPERATIONS COMMITTEE GAMBLED WITH OUR RISK. We were lucky no storms hit during this enormous exposure to the “tsunami”, about which my visitor complained. DO WE WANT GAMBLERS MANAGING OUR 10 MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET FOR WPRF ANY MORE? WPRF tried to reduce this enormous exposure, but the OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FAILED TO ACT ON IT! My visitor just could not understand this point.

I did learn that the policy for which we pay 683,669.00 for $ 1,000,000.00 coverage has an aggregate of $ 2,000,000.00. I interpret, that to mean our limit is that amount (not unlimited claims for $ 1,000,000.00). Even this cost is prorated to each of the four Villages, so our share is $ 194,000.00. I have communicated with WPRP directly and obtained the explanation. It was reported, at the Delegate Assembly, to be $ 1,000,000.00 coverage only, however when the limit of
$ 2,000,000.00 would be exhausted the $ 30,000,000.00 Umbrella Policy would then cover any claims up to $ 30,000,000.00. This proves the coverage to be more than adequate. It certainly clears up the concern of inadequate coverage as we were informed at the Delegate Assembly!

How do you feel on these issues? Let the U C O Operations Committee KNOW you views!

VOTE your view on March 7, 2008

"BUDGET Giveaway"

This is almost as bad as “FREE Roof Inspections”, to give away our budgets to the Insurance Company so they would “reduce the deductible”? The Insurance Application does not ask for that at all!

I asked for documentation of this requirement and NEVER received any response. The Insurance industry has employees that analyze risks so that the company may properly price the premium.

I would not be surprised for other elements of our Insurance to request budgets, and find that those who maintain their own reserves may see increases in their premiums. Even this policy might do that!

Even the EXPLANATION left some believing their LOSS DEDUCTIBLE for Storm Damage went DOWN TO $ 5,000.00 from the 2% of value, approximating more than
$ 30,000.00. I only hope during budget deliberations that most Associations were not confused. Otherwise, many Unit Owners “will be up in arms”.

What’s your view, we would all like to know?

Ed Black

Insurance Costs

At the Delegate Assembly we were also told we pay $ 700,000.00 for $ 1,000,000.00 in for liability coverage, including the complaint that “its too much for only $ 1,000,000.00!

All four villages are covered by this policy, and we pay our pro-rata share, as we always have. The coverage provides $ 1,000,000.00 PER INCIDENT! That coverage protects all incidents UP TO $ 1,000,000.00 FOR ALL FOUR VILLAGES.

If each Village had multiple incidents and claims by residents falling and each claim cost $ 1,000,000.00, and all are covered, why was someone complaining about this cost?

Most cases are for smaller amounts, but each incident IS COVERED UP TO 1 MILLION, without limits on the number of cases involved.

This is a good plan – so far as I can see!

We need professionals to speak to these kinds of issues, so we GET THE FACTS!