Subscribe by Email

Articles Posted in Insurance

With hurricane season now underway, Florida condominium associations should take the time to ensure that they and their owners are prepared for a storm.  In addition to ensuring that hurricane shutters are operational and all of the necessary supplies are on hand, associations should communicate with owners about insurance and liability under state law.

Florida law requires associations to maintain insurance for all portions of the condominium property as originally installed in accordance with the original plans and specifications, as well as alterations or additions made to the condominium property.  Personal property, including floor, wall and ceiling coverings (i.e., paint, wallpaper, wood flooring), electrical fixtures, appliances, water heaters, water filters, built-in cabinets and countertops, and window treatments including curtains, drapes, blinds, and similar window treatment components, located within a unit or that unit’s limited common elements, and which serve only that unit, are not covered by the association’s insurance policies.  Unit owners are responsible for maintaining their own insurance coverage for these items.

strm-300x240At the start of every hurricane season, association board members or property management should photograph and/or video all of the main public areas of the condominium property.  These images could become vitally important in the event that a storm strikes and claims are filed.   Associations should also take the time to store copies of their wind, flood and property insurance policies in waterproof cases in a secure location.  If possible, digital copies should also be stored in several computers and devices.

Continue reading

Michael-Clark-Gort-photo-thumb-120x180-45140Firm partner B. Michael Clark, Jr. authored a guest column that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” feature in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper.  The article, which was titled “Court Upholds Concurrent Cause Doctrine in Win for Property Policyholders,” focused on the positive ramifications for Florida commercial and residential insurance policyholders of the state Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Sebo v. American Home Assurance.  Michael’s article reads:

The recent Supreme Court of Florida decision in Sebo v. American Home Assurance rejecting the “efficient proximate cause doctrine” in favor of the “concurrent cause doctrine” for property insurance claims represents a significant win for residential and commercial policyholders.

The state’s highest court has determined that the appropriate theory of recovery for claims in which two or more perils contribute to a loss but at least one of the perils is excluded from coverage is the concurrent cause doctrine. Under the rejected efficient proximate cause theory, when multiple perils cause a loss, it is the efficient cause — the one that sets the other in motion — to which the loss is attributed.

For the insurance industry, the efficient proximate cause doctrine has always been preferred. If the carriers are able to demonstrate that the efficient cause behind a loss is excluded from coverage under the policy, then the entire claim may be denied.

dbr-logo-thumb-400x76-51605-300x57Sebo makes the concurrent cause doctrine the legal standard to be applied for property insurance claims in Florida. Now insurers must cover a loss even if the covered peril is the secondary cause of the loss, which was concurrent with but not the primary or efficient cause.

Continue reading

Insurance coverage and claims are often among the most confusing and troublesome matters that developers and community associations must address, and large claims involving serious property damage from any type of disaster will typically require the guidance and expertise of attorneys and public adjusters.

After growing up in the insurance industry as the daughter of one of Florida’s premier policyholder advocates, my exposure to insurance practices began at a remarkably young age. As a dually licensed public adjuster and attorney, I focus on insurance matters for our firm’s community association clients as well as property and business owners. Through my unique upbringing in conjunction with my years of practice, I have learned that virtually all insureds would amass a great benefit by working with a loss consultant and experienced legal counsel when handling an insurance claim.

susanodess-srhl.jpgThe firm’s Susan C. Odess, who focuses exclusively on insurance law and represents community associations as well as individual residential and commercial property owners in insurance matters, wrote the following guest column that appeared in the May 25 edition of the Miami Herald’s “Business Monday” section:

MHymanseminar2015.jpgIn January I had the privilege of leading one of the courses for the attendees of the 36th annual Community Associations Institute Law Seminar in San Francisco. More than 550 community association attorneys from throughout the country attended the four-day event, which focused on discussions of emerging trends and legislative issues that are important to the practice of community association law.

Community associations maintain a number of different types of insurance policies to cover various risks, including physical damage, bodily injury, and employee or director dishonesty. Association boards typically rely on their insurance agents to help them shop the major insurance carriers for the most competitive premiums and coverage. Ultimately, policies are acquired by associations, often times with little thought about their provisions other than the costs of the premiums related to the coverage. However, recent experiences with two of our firm’s community association clients have served as reminders pertaining to the importance for board members and property managers to understand the provisions of their insurance policies, including the exclusions and conditions of such coverage.

For the last several years, the state of Florida has been pursuing major efforts to shrink the size of the state-run Citizens Property Insurance, and the company’s policy count has reached its lowest level since 2006. Now the legislature is considering expanding these efforts to Citizens’ insurance policies for condominiums and apartments. Senate Bill 7062 would increase rates for new master condo policies and allow unregulated “surplus lines” insurers to pull existing condominium and apartment policies away from Citizens. However, in an election year when Gov. Rick Scott has expressed concerns about any measures that would increase rates, the bill faces a difficult uphill climb.

Last year I participated in a discussion with an Associated Press reporter and wrote about a central Florida community association’s apparent endorsement of George Zimmerman as its neighborhood watch captain and his involvement in a tragic incident that took the life of the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. I addressed the possibility that the victim’s family may file a wrongful death civil suit against the association. Last month, news broke about the purported settlement reached between the parents of the victim and the association for an undisclosed amount reported by several news outlets to be in excess of $1 million.

Recently, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. River Manor Condominium Association, Inc., ruled that an insurer is not required to provide an association with coverage for “all portions of the condominium property located outside the units” and “all portions of the condominium property for which the declaration of condominium requires coverage by the association,” notwithstanding the requirements of Section 718.111, Florida Statutes. In the case, Citizens Property Insurance Corp. (“Citizens”) provided insurance to River Manor Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”) for a residential condominium comprised of three buildings and exterior common elements. The condominium was damaged in Hurricane Wilma and, when the parties were unable to agree on the extent of the damage, they participated in a mandatory appraisal process that resulted in an award that specified the total loss sustained by each building and the exterior common elements.