Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.

Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SaDxvm010

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.

Leave it to NYPost to dig up dirt on the developers, principal was Canadian evading law:

Developers of doomed Fla. tower were once accused of paying off officials: report
https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/developers-of-fla-tower-were-accused-of-paying-off-officials/

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.

I've never insured a condo, so I can't say for certain, but I expect you are confusing condo insurance with apartment insurance.

A friend had a town house that was a condo. She had insurance for the home as well as contents.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

tirsdag den 29. juni 2021 kl. 17.48.28 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> > Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> > The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.
> I've never insured a condo, so I can't say for certain, but I expect you are confusing condo insurance with apartment insurance.
>
> A friend had a town house that was a condo. She had insurance for the home as well as contents.
>

here insurance for the building is required, that and external maintenance, etc. is by the home owners association.
contents is insured (voluntarily) by each owner or if it is rented out renter. afair temporary rehousing in case the building
damaged is paid by content insurance

On 6/29/2021 9:21 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> here insurance for the building is required, that and external maintenance,
> etc. is by the home owners association. contents is insured (voluntarily) by
> each owner or if it is rented out renter. afair temporary rehousing in case
> the building damaged is paid by content insurance
A distinction is usually made wrt "owner" vs. "complex" properties and
liabilities.

The complex may cover the outside grounds, walls and roof -- along with
any "common facilities" (club house, swimming pool, golf course, etc.).
This, of course, part of the monthly "fee" that residents must remit.

The (individual property) "owner" is liable for the interior of their
unit. E.g., install a waterbed and have it leak, that's YOUR problem
(and your expense). Fire/smoke? Liability (a visitor trips on your
staircase and breaks a leg)? Vandalism/theft?

One of the hassles about "community living" is that you need to develop
concensus to coerce the "complex" to undertake repairs or other actions
that *you* might want (but your neighbors might not -- cuz they end
up sharing the cost of those).

I'd be curious as to how ceilings/floors are handled in multistory
units; am I responsible for the floor below me while the person
above is responsible for my "ceiling"?

It will be interesting to see what happens to insurance rates (in Fla)
as a consequence of all this. Insurers really are hesitant to spend
money if they can find a way NOT to!

tirsdag den 29. juni 2021 kl. 18.34.45 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
> On 6/29/2021 9:21 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> > here insurance for the building is required, that and external maintenance,
> > etc. is by the home owners association. contents is insured (voluntarily) by
> > each owner or if it is rented out renter. afair temporary rehousing in case
> > the building damaged is paid by content insurance
> A distinction is usually made wrt "owner" vs. "complex" properties and
> liabilities.
>
> The complex may cover the outside grounds, walls and roof -- along with
> any "common facilities" (club house, swimming pool, golf course, etc.).
> This, of course, part of the monthly "fee" that residents must remit.
>
> The (individual property) "owner" is liable for the interior of their
> unit. E.g., install a waterbed and have it leak, that's YOUR problem
> (and your expense). Fire/smoke? Liability (a visitor trips on your
> staircase and breaks a leg)? Vandalism/theft?

here fire insurance (on the building not content) is on the mandatory HOA insurance

>
> One of the hassles about "community living" is that you need to develop
> concensus to coerce the "complex" to undertake repairs or other actions
> that *you* might want (but your neighbors might not -- cuz they end
> up sharing the cost of those).
>
> I'd be curious as to how ceilings/floors are handled in multistory
> units; am I responsible for the floor below me while the person
> above is responsible for my "ceiling"?

I know that say a water leak that damages my floors ceiling or kitchen is
covered by the building insurance because it is part of the building
> It will be interesting to see what happens to insurance rates (in Fla)
> as a consequence of all this. Insurers really are hesitant to spend
> money if they can find a way NOT to!

On 6/29/2021 9:48 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

>> One of the hassles about "community living" is that you need to develop
>> concensus to coerce the "complex" to undertake repairs or other actions
>> that *you* might want (but your neighbors might not -- cuz they end
>> up sharing the cost of those).
>>
>> I'd be curious as to how ceilings/floors are handled in multistory
>> units; am I responsible for the floor below me while the person
>> above is responsible for my "ceiling"?
>
> I know that say a water leak that damages my floors ceiling or kitchen is
> covered by the building insurance because it is part of the building

*Interior* walls (and floors) are typically "your problem".
If your washing machine leaks all over YOUR floor, that's *your*
problem. (why should your neighbors have to share in the cost
of your mistake?)

But, as I mentioned, I've no idea what happens with "up and down"
units -- I've only dealt with "townhomes" ("row houses") so the
only thing shared is the wall between you and your neighbors'
units.

Roofs tend to be treated as part of the complex -- likely because
they affect the overall appearance (you wouldn't want each homeowner
deciding to maintain their roof in different ways, with different
materials and at different times).

Likewise the *front* lawns, exteriors, etc.

You can bet the insurance companies have dotted every 'i' when it
comes to determining (i.e., LIMITING!) their liability.

A neighbor had three large/old/tall pines in their yard (3+ft dia).
No matter which way they "fell", someone's home would be seriously
damaged.

They seemed delighted to inform us that if they were toppled by
a "natural event" (microbursts topple trees like these with ease
in our neighborhood), *they* wouldn't be liable for the damages
(according to their insurer).

After a couple of years living here, they must have realized that the
bigger potential risk was to THEIR home. And, likely whatever
"act of god" disclaimer the insurer had given them to ease their
concerns over their liability to a loss that one of their NEIGHBORS
might incur from their falling, they realized that the insurer
would likely weasel out of covering THEIR home for such a loss, as well!

They reluctantly decided to take the trees down ($1500/ea) and
wondered why the neighbors didn't want to "contribute" to ease
their cost ("Hey, no one 'contributed' when *I* took our trees down!")

You saw the trees when you purchased the property. Didn't you
consider their consequences at that time??

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:48:28 AM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> > Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> > The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.
> I've never insured a condo, so I can't say for certain, but I expect you are confusing condo insurance with apartment insurance.
>
> A friend had a town house that was a condo. She had insurance for the home as well as contents.

It should have been clear from the context I was repeating what the attorney expert in these matters said.

> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:21:47 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> tirsdag den 29. juni 2021 kl. 17.48.28 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
> > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 5:14:43 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Construction attorney David Haber interviewed by WPLG local discusses legal issues stemming from Surfside building collapse. He tells the last thing any condominium board wants to do is levy an expensive assessment against the residents for anything that doesn't immediately affect market value of the building. They'll try anything from complete denial to patchwork repairs to avoid having to take on a huge remediation bill. So unless the building is in very obvious danger of imminent collapse, it won't get done. Board members are highly political and unqualified to make the decisions they do, this is the microcosm part.
> > > Interview was generally bad mainly because of that stupid woman who kept asking question obviously beyond the expertise of a specialist attorney.. The attorney can't know if a 40 year recertification is frequent enough. But he does know the lawsuits are really going to be flying.
> > > The building insurer doesn't have to pay a dime if they can show the building was not being kept in a state of good general repair. Which it obviously wasn't. And any homeowner insurance the residents had usually only covers their belongings, it doesn't cover the market value of their condo.
> > I've never insured a condo, so I can't say for certain, but I expect you are confusing condo insurance with apartment insurance.
> >
> > A friend had a town house that was a condo. She had insurance for the home as well as contents.
> >
> here insurance for the building is required, that and external maintenance, etc. is by the home owners association.
> contents is insured (voluntarily) by each owner or if it is rented out renter. afair temporary rehousing in case the building
> damaged is paid by content insurance

U.S. is more complicated in U.S. as the individual states regulate their insurance industry. They're not wildly different, because they all adopt model code templates more or less, but there are differences.