Re: Insuring Improvements vs Tenants' Improvements in the CC&Rs

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

The CC&Rs for my condominium require the board to purchase fire and other hazard insurance to insure against loss from perils to all "improvements in the project" (the "project referring to the entire real property and all structures thereon"). They further prohibit individual owners from purchasing their own insurance which would be duplicative of the insurance the board is required to maintain, but allow the owners to separately insure "tenants' improvements" made by an Owner within a unit.

Bear in mind these CC&Rs were created in 1972, the same year of the building.

What is the difference between the "improvements" the board is required to insure and the "tenants' improvements" which the owner may insure? Do the "improvements" the board is required to insure constitute all original construction, including individual units and common areas?

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

There can only be one policy in place for fire damage. If the HOA is required to provide a master policy, the owner can only carry "renters" or HO6 insurance.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I agree with Richard.One way to say it might be that the HOA is responsible for the buildings as a whole, but "Improvements'IN units are the owners' responsbility, e.g., cabinets, flooring

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

I looked into this a few years back and here is my take on it. There are two meanings to the word improvements.

Buildings are an example of improvements to real estate, so that means all of your buildings including units must be insured. This is quite common. A unit means a unit as defined in your governing documents and as originally built. This probably includes anything "that are a part of the building or structure," so cabinets and attached fixtures would be covered.

The above coverage would not include tenant improvements made by an owner (tenant). I'm not sure why they used the word tenant when it should say "unit owner." Tenant improvements are alterations, additions, betterments, (substantial) upgrades, decoration, etc made by a unit owner, such as new walls, new fixtures, new plumbing, paint, wall paper, additional crown molding, etc.

So it is actually really simple. You insure all of the original buildings, but not anything added by the owner.

Your master insurance policy should follow the requirements in your documents. I suggest reading the policy, which will most likely provide further definitions and specifics of coverage. I would also ask your insurance agent.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

People are making this more complicated than it should be. The improvements are what the HOA is responsible for, the common area. If the HOA hasn't added anything to the common area, no big deal. If the HOA went from shingle roofs to tile roof, that would be an improvement. If the HOA had outside mail clsuters and then built an indoor mail station that would be an improvement.

What they are mainly saying is the owner can not have a fire policy in addition to the HOA's master fire policy.Can't have two competing policies.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ScottH19 on 10/22/2018 5:12 PM
Do the "improvements" the board is required to insure constitute all original construction, including individual units and common areas?

Yes, that is my interpretation. However, Richard's post is interesting.

From the legal section of the free dictionary:

improvement
n. any permanent structure on real property, or any work on the property (such as planting trees) which increases its value.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/improvement

So I am assuming that improvement means both the buildings themselves, and also later improvements to the buildings as Richard posted.

Scott can you add or clarify more from your CCRs? Is other insurance required on the buildings, or is the snippet you quoted the only insurance required for the buildings/property?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

As Richard wrote, "What they are mainly saying is the owner can not have a fire policy in addition to the HOA's master fire policy.Can't have two competing policies."

Our CC&Rs are very clear on this point.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

I sure can. By the way, thank you to all who have taken the time to comment.

I've extracted and attached here the 4 pages from the CC&Rs dealing with insurance. The attachment also includes page 2 of the CC&Rs which contains the definitions. Let me know if you can't access the attachment and I'll type out the language.

Bear in mind the issue here isn’t the “fire” insurance but rather the “other hazard” insurance referred to in the CC&Rs, p. 13, line 1 of paragraph 2.

To add context, I've lived in the 1972 condominium complex for about 5 years. In August of this year, I had water damage in my kitchen which was caused by a kitchen faucet cartridge that went bad. There was damage to the cabinets, adjacent drywall, and hardwood flooring. I have reason to believe the hardwood flooring was added by the previous owner from whom I purchased the unit. As to the cabinets (and countertops), or the kitchen walls as they current exist, I don't know if they were in place from the very beginning or added later. No damage to the common area or adjacent units.

My H0-6 insurance has relied on #2 on page 13 and # 4 on page 15 of the attachment in taking the position that: (1) the HOA insurance is the primary insurance for any part of the condominium (including the units themselves) that constitute the "original specifications" of the condominium; and (2) the H0-6 insurance is responsible for any "betterments" to the unit added by the owner (as if there would be a record of every single change made by all previous owners that occupied the unit before me).

As far as I can tell, my HOA is not acquainted with the notion that the CC&Rs govern who is supposed to insure what.

It is interesting that paragraph 1 on p. 12, which refers to “comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance” is meant to “insure against loss arising from perils in both common areas and the units,” while the “fire and other hazard insurance” is meant to insure “all of the improvements in the project [except what the individual owner can insure].” If the hazard insurance was meant to protect against hazards within the units themselves, why not say that as done for the “property damage” insurance?

📎 Attachments (1):

📄1102331439571.pdf(138 KB)

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

The damage to your unit would be the responsibility of the owner, not the HOA. Your HOA policy should be handling that.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 1:56 PM
The damage to your unit would be the responsibility of the owner, not the HOA. Your HOA policy should be handling that.

You mean the H0-6 policy? Are you basing that off what it says in the CC&Rs?

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 10:13 AM

Posted By ScottH19 on 10/22/2018 5:12 PM

Scott can you add or clarify more from your CCRs? Is other insurance required on the buildings, or is the snippet you quoted the only insurance required for the buildings/property?

Yes, please see my post from today. Thanks.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

You buy a new kitchen faucet from Home Depot (which includes a cartridge) and have it installed. It goes bad. WHY is the HOA responsible for a bad product or maybe a bad installation. No matter when it was done, unless under warranty by the developer, is the sole responsibility of the owner, as part of owner improvements.

This is based on many years of experience.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 4:16 PM
You buy a new kitchen faucet from Home Depot (which includes a cartridge) and have it installed. It goes bad. WHY is the HOA responsible for a bad product or maybe a bad installation. No matter when it was done, unless under warranty by the developer, is the sole responsibility of the owner, as part of owner improvements.

This is based on many years of experience.

Richard, I do not disagree with your general sentiment. I also don't disagree, based on my research thus far, that the HOA is not "responsible" for my damage in the sense that it's not responsible for fixing the damage (sorry for the triple negative). However, the HOA can be responsible for "insuring" an individual owner's unit if it makes itself responsible. It makes itself responsible by adopting CC&Rs which impose the responsibility on the board of insuring individual units. [Frankly, I'm not clear as to the motive of the HOA adopting CC&Rs which impose on the board the responsibility of insuring anything other than the common areas, outside perimeter, etc.] If the HOA's CC&Rs do impose on the board the responsibility of insuring the original specifications of individual units, then the natural result is that an individual's H0-6 insurance will deny coverage for damage to those original specifications. As you said, there can't be double insurance. In such case, it's certainly not equitable that the board refuse to make a claim on its insurance.

The reason for my original post was to determine whether the language of the CC&Rs actually does place the responsibility on the board to insure the original specifications of the individual units. That turns on the meaning of "improvements" and "tenants' improvements."

Thanks.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Why would the HOA repair damage caused by your faucet?

The HOA didn't adopt those CCRs. They were placed on the complex by the developer.

Let's stay there was a warranty on that faucet when installed in 1972. I am guessing the warranty has expired. I am also guessing that the faucet over time have been replaced, making it a tenant improvement. According to YOUR documents who is supposed to insure the "tenant improvements"?

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

I read your attached doc and I'm sticking to my interpretation. Improvements means everything, including units, in the sense of the real estate definition provided earlier. Tenant's improvements means additional stuff. Your docs require insurance on the units. So "both common areas and the units,” and "all of the improvements in the project" are the same thing.

It is common for condominiums to have insurance on the units, in addition to the common areas, so that everything is covered. Insurance on the units is required by law in some states (not CA). My association has it. Some posters here have it. If there is a fire, the insurance covers rebuilding the units instead of having the unit owner take the money and run, leaving a dead unit with no future income for the association. It also prevents some lawsuits regarding fault, since everything is just covered.

Your association has this insurance, or should have this insurance on units. As you say, they may not even know they have it, which is common enough. It's complicated.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 6:01 PM
Why would the HOA repair damage caused by your faucet?

The HOA didn't adopt those CCRs. They were placed on the complex by the developer.

Let's stay there was a warranty on that faucet when installed in 1972. I am guessing the warranty has expired. I am also guessing that the faucet over time have been replaced, making it a tenant improvement. According to YOUR documents who is supposed to insure the "tenant improvements"?

Richard, perhaps I misspoke when I said the HOA "adopted" the CC&Rs. However, the CC&Rs are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the property. Persons who acquire an interest in the property agree to be bound by the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs also provide a mechanism by which the HOA can amend the CC&Rs (which was never done). So it really doesn't matter whether they were "adopted," because under any circumstance every owner is bound by them.

Again, I am not saying "the HOA [would] repair damage caused by my faucet." My CC&Rs place the obligation of maintaining and repairing on the individual owner. But the obligation of maintenance/repair is not the same as the obligation to insure. See page 2 of this article: http://tinnellylaw.com/beta/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Water-Damage-Claims-Tinnelly-Law-Group.pdf . This is why it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused by my faucet or by a common pipe in the wall. Responsibility to repair ≠ responsibility to insure.

If the faucet was replaced in the past by previous owners, then yes, it would be a tenant improvement which, if damaged, would be the responsibility of the h0-6 to repair/replace per the CC&Rs. I don't think I expressed doubt in my earlier posts that my H0-6 was the primary insurance to repair/replace tenant improvements as per the CC&Rs. I just wasn't clear as to the precise definitions of "tenants" improvements" and "improvements."

Let's say JeffT2's post concerning his understanding of the word "improvements" is correct (and I suspect it is), i.e. all of the original buildings. Assuming the drywall, cabinetry and countertops are original to the unit, then damage to them caused by water leaking from my faucet cartridge would be insured by the HOA insurance. This is because the CC&Rs say so. Is that the way I want it? No. I'd rather the HOA have nothing to do with it. But it's the way it is.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Regarding your damage claim, I think your adjuster and insurance company got it wrong. Your HO-6 policy might actually have coverage for your unit, even if you are not supposed to have it. I tried to get a HO-6 policy with no coverage for the unit, but it only came as a package with a $10,000 minimum coverage for my unit. Your HO-6 package should also have coverage for the association's deductible, which is probably quite large ($2,500 - $20,000 or more deductible) and may exceed your damage. Your HO-6 package should also have liability coverage for point 4, which refers to your liability to the association. So you should have been covered three ways. If the association does not make a claim for the damage, then your insurance should indemnify (cover) you. At the very least, they should help you with the association's insurance.

If I were you, I would press the association to make a claim for the damage in every way I could, including contacting the association's local insurance agent and company directly, since you are an insured. I would also read my HO-6 insurance policy and get my HO-6 insurance re-involved and appeal the decision.

For the future, you might want to buy your HO-6 policy with the same insurance company as your association's insurance company. That way when you make a claim, you will get the adjuster to consider all the coverage under your policy and the association's policy since they would be the same insurance company.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 6:53 PM
Regarding your damage claim, I think your adjuster and insurance company got it wrong. Your HO-6 policy might actually have coverage for your unit, even if you are not supposed to have it.

In the most technical sense, I think you're right, but I believe that coverage doesn't become available when the CC&Rs state that the board is responsible for securing that coverage. That's why I'm dealing with this unpleasant situation.

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 6:53 PM
Your HO-6 package should also have coverage for the association's deductible, which is probably quite large ($2,500 - $20,000 or more deductible) and may exceed your damage. Your HO-6 package should also have liability coverage for point 4, which refers to your liability to the association.

The HO-6 does have coverage for the association's deductible. In this case, the association's deductible is $5,000. It's because the damages estimate exceeds $5,000 that my claim was denied (at least in part). The H0-6 does provide coverage for point 4 (tenant improvements). At this time, the only damage to tenant improvements that I'm aware of is to the hardwood floor.

I'm not sure there's any way of knowing whether the previous owners in the last 40 years made changes which would render the drywall and cabinetry "tenants improvements." Do you have any advice as it relates to parsing out damage to original specifications vs damage to tenants' improvements?

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 6:53 PM
If the association does not make a claim for the damage, then your insurance should indemnify (cover) you. At the very least, they should help you with the association's insurance.

Based on dealings w/ my insurance company, I doubt it will cover me when and if my HOA refuses to make a claim.

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 6:53 PM
If I were you, I would press the association to make a claim for the damage in every way I could, including contacting the association's local insurance agent and company directly, since you are an insured. I would also read my HO-6 insurance policy and get my HO-6 insurance re-involved and appeal the decision.

My understanding is that only the board can actually decide whether to make a claim on the HOA's insurance. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. If that's the case, in what way would contacting the association's insurance agent be helpful?

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 6:53 PM
For the future, you might want to buy your HO-6 policy with the same insurance company as your association's insurance company. That way when you make a claim, you will get the adjuster to consider all the coverage under your policy and the association's policy since they would be the same insurance company.

Excellent advice.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

It appears people don't understand.

You can not have dual competing policies on the same unit. Unless the faucet was still under manufacture warranty, the owner is responsible for any damage caused by the cartridge going bad. You make refer to a law article, saying that common wall pipes and faucets are the same. Sorry, they are NOT! If the leak occurred in the wall, it could be, but not always. If the water regulatory went bad and exploded the cartridge you might have a case.

If there is damage to your unit, it is the obligation of the owner to contact their insurance company and they will then contact the HOA's insurance company.

BUT, based on what you have posted and what you provided in documents, this is owners responsibility.

I do this for a living.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

If the floor is a tenant's improvement, then your HO6 should have paid for it, minus your deductible.

Point 1 says: "the policy or policies shall name as insureds all Owners and the Association"

Okay, so as an owner, you are an insured.

I found this on davis-stirling.com:

"HOA CC&Rs and insurance policies often define individual owners as insureds, which means they have a right to tender a claim. Even if they are not defined as insureds, the Fair Claims Handling Practice Act requires that an agent, broker or carrier file any claim request submitted. The carrier can still deny coverage once it has reviewed the claim, the policy and the governing documents."

So go to the insurance agent, broker or carrier and submit a claim request on the association's insurance.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Sorry, it says "insured" not "insureds," but I think it is the same thing.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 10:49 PM
If the floor is a tenant's improvement, then your HO6 should have paid for it, minus your deductible.

Point 1 says: "the policy or policies shall name as insureds all Owners and the Association"

Okay, so as an owner, you are an insured.

I found this on davis-stirling.com:

"HOA CC&Rs and insurance policies often define individual owners as insureds, which means they have a right to tender a claim. Even if they are not defined as insureds, the Fair Claims Handling Practice Act requires that an agent, broker or carrier file any claim request submitted. The carrier can still deny coverage once it has reviewed the claim, the policy and the governing documents."

So go to the insurance agent, broker or carrier and submit a claim request on the association's insurance.

Insured against what?

Insurance policy are written to insure what is required by the association's governing documents.

Of course, an HOA can vote to have the pay for everything. I managed one where the owners voted on new CCRS that required the HOA to pay for everything. In the case of the OP, they could file a claim and pay the $25,000.00 deductible.

The OP's condo will have a master policy. That policy will have a declaration page with the agent name and phone number. They are more than welcome to file a claim with the association's insurance, but based on what has been posted, it will be denied.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/24/2018 8:29 AM

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 10:49 PM
If the floor is a tenant's improvement, then your HO6 should have paid for it, minus your deductible.

Point 1 says: "the policy or policies shall name as insureds all Owners and the Association"

Okay, so as an owner, you are an insured.

I found this on davis-stirling.com:

"HOA CC&Rs and insurance policies often define individual owners as insureds, which means they have a right to tender a claim. Even if they are not defined as insureds, the Fair Claims Handling Practice Act requires that an agent, broker or carrier file any claim request submitted. The carrier can still deny coverage once it has reviewed the claim, the policy and the governing documents."

So go to the insurance agent, broker or carrier and submit a claim request on the association's insurance.

Insured against what?

Insurance policy are written to insure what is required by the association's governing documents.

Of course, an HOA can vote to have the pay for everything. I managed one where the owners voted on new CCRS that required the HOA to pay for everything. In the case of the OP, they could file a claim and pay the $25,000.00 deductible.

The OP's condo will have a master policy. That policy will have a declaration page with the agent name and phone number. They are more than welcome to file a claim with the association's insurance, but based on what has been posted, it will be denied.

Here is my position. What am I getting wrong?

Scott's CCRs state (Article VIII, point 1) that the association must have insurance on both the common areas and the units.

The association's insurance policy will (should) follow the above CCRs...

so the association's insurance will have coverage of property damage of units including Scott's unit.

It also states in point 2 "all improvements in the project" which I take to mean all real property including units, which is the same as in point 1.

Per Scott, the association's deductible is $5,000, the damage was greater than the deductible, and his HO6 has coverage for the association's deductible.

I am assuming that this was an insurable event, as in a sudden and accidental incident, not a slow leak that caused damage over time.

Scott can make a claim on the association's insurance for property damage to his unit, and go back to his insurance for the deductible.

To look at it another way, one of the insurances, either the master policy or the HO6, must cover property damage.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

What the HOA policy covers for the unit is a fire policy. In the event a fire burns down the unit, it will rebuild and replace as to the specs when new. The faucet would be replaced to original or like spec, but not to the $2,000.00 unit they may have installed. An HO-6 policy not cover if the owner didn't request.

The faucet which broke is not HOA property, another unit's property or is it common area shared by others. It is for the owner exclusive use only.

Again, I deal with this on a daily basis. If I have doubt, I call the insurance agent.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 8:51 PM
It appears people don't understand.

You can not have dual competing policies on the same unit.

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 8:51 PM
You make refer to a law article, saying that common wall pipes and faucets are the same. Sorry, they are NOT! If the leak occurred in the wall, it could be, but not always. If the water regulatory went bad and exploded the cartridge you might have a case.

The fact that the law article on p. 2 used a failed supply line as opposed to a failed kitchen faucet in its example does not appear to make a difference, because in that hypothetical the association determined the supply line was the owner's responsibility, just as a kitchen faucet is the owner's responsibility. It was meant to illustrate "problems by conflating the issue of maintenance responsibility with the separate issue of insurance coverage."

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 8:51 PM
If there is damage to your unit, it is the obligation of the owner to contact their insurance company and they will then contact the HOA's insurance company.

I have contacted my insurance company.
While of course my insurance company could contact the HOA's insurance co., that begs the question as to whether submission of a claim on the HOA's insurance policy can only be authorized by the board.

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/23/2018 8:51 PM
BUT, based on what you have posted and what you provided in documents, this is owners responsibility.

I do this for a living.

Richard, if you do this for a living, I am certainly interested in your point of view. Can you clarify whether you are an insurance adjuster and whether you handle H0-6 and/or HOA insurance claims?

I would like to understand your reasoning, but I'm having difficulty understanding how you reached that conclusion. Do you not agree that certain language in CC&Rs can make the HOA insurance responsible for damages to a single unit where the cause of the damage was the responsibility of the owner? If so, why? Or do you agree that CC&Rs can potentially make the HOA insurance responsible, but just not in this case? If so, why?

I simply want to understand.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/24/2018 9:21 AM

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/24/2018 8:29 AM

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/23/2018 10:49 PM
If the floor is a tenant's improvement, then your HO6 should have paid for it, minus your deductible.

Point 1 says: "the policy or policies shall name as insureds all Owners and the Association"

Okay, so as an owner, you are an insured.

I found this on davis-stirling.com:

"HOA CC&Rs and insurance policies often define individual owners as insureds, which means they have a right to tender a claim. Even if they are not defined as insureds, the Fair Claims Handling Practice Act requires that an agent, broker or carrier file any claim request submitted. The carrier can still deny coverage once it has reviewed the claim, the policy and the governing documents."

So go to the insurance agent, broker or carrier and submit a claim request on the association's insurance.

Insured against what?

Insurance policy are written to insure what is required by the association's governing documents.

Of course, an HOA can vote to have the pay for everything. I managed one where the owners voted on new CCRS that required the HOA to pay for everything. In the case of the OP, they could file a claim and pay the $25,000.00 deductible.

The OP's condo will have a master policy. That policy will have a declaration page with the agent name and phone number. They are more than welcome to file a claim with the association's insurance, but based on what has been posted, it will be denied.

Here is my position. What am I getting wrong?

Scott's CCRs state (Article VIII, point 1) that the association must have insurance on both the common areas and the units.

The association's insurance policy will (should) follow the above CCRs...

so the association's insurance will have coverage of property damage of units including Scott's unit.

It also states in point 2 "all improvements in the project" which I take to mean all real property including units, which is the same as in point 1.

Per Scott, the association's deductible is $5,000, the damage was greater than the deductible, and his HO6 has coverage for the association's deductible.

I am assuming that this was an insurable event, as in a sudden and accidental incident, not a slow leak that caused damage over time.

Scott can make a claim on the association's insurance for property damage to his unit, and go back to his insurance for the deductible.

To look at it another way, one of the insurances, either the master policy or the HO6, must cover property damage.

Jeff, I think I agree with you. I'm just trying to understand where Richard is coming from.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Jeff

Did the HOA insurance settle your claim? If not, you can always find a lawyer and see if they will handle it for you.

Where I am coming from? Experience.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/24/2018 9:34 AM
What the HOA policy covers for the unit is a fire policy. In the event a fire burns down the unit, it will rebuild and replace as to the specs when new. The faucet would be replaced to original or like spec, but not to the $2,000.00 unit they may have installed. An HO-6 policy not cover if the owner didn't request.

The faucet which broke is not HOA property, another unit's property or is it common area shared by others. It is for the owner exclusive use only.

Again, I deal with this on a daily basis. If I have doubt, I call the insurance agent.

I think we're getting a little hung up on faucet repair/replacement. The faucet doesn't need to be replaced. I purchased a new cartridge for a nominal amount. I'm also not seeking to be compensated for the plumber coming to fix the faucet since I doubt anyone's insurance policy covers appliance maintenance/repair. The issue is the damage caused by the leak which originated from the bad faucet cartridge.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ScottH19 on 10/24/2018 10:49 AM

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/24/2018 9:34 AM
What the HOA policy covers for the unit is a fire policy. In the event a fire burns down the unit, it will rebuild and replace as to the specs when new. The faucet would be replaced to original or like spec, but not to the $2,000.00 unit they may have installed. An HO-6 policy not cover if the owner didn't request.

The faucet which broke is not HOA property, another unit's property or is it common area shared by others. It is for the owner exclusive use only.

Again, I deal with this on a daily basis. If I have doubt, I call the insurance agent.

I think we're getting a little hung up on faucet repair/replacement. The faucet doesn't need to be replaced. I purchased a new cartridge for a nominal amount. I'm also not seeking to be compensated for the plumber coming to fix the faucet since I doubt anyone's insurance policy covers appliance maintenance/repair. The issue is the damage caused by the leak which originated from the bad faucet cartridge.

Can you tell me exactly how the HOA would be involved? Does the HOA own the cartridge? Does the HOA own the faucet? Did they install either one of these items?

Part of the problem is also with your CCRs and/or governing documents. They are from 1972, put in there by the developer of the complex. If when the warranty period, something breaks, it is the developer/builder that will replace and/or repair, not the HOA.

If you have questions on what the HOA, in your opinion, is supposed to cover, don't rely on our information, go straight to the source, the HOA insurance agent. If not satisfied, get yourself a lawyer.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

The HOA should be involved because the HOA is required by their CCRs to obtain insurance for property damage to a unit, and there is property damage to a unit. Simple as that, they have the insurance.

It's not like this is unusual insurance or a rare payout. I have seen the same requirement for insurance on units in other condo declarations and quite a few states have it in law. I've also seen insurance money knowingly paid out from an HOA's master policy for property damage to a unit.

Why should the HOA obtain insurance, pay for it for years, and then not know what they are doing and refuse to put in a claim?

Somebody has to have property damage insurance, in this case the CCRs require it in the master policy and specifically state that it is not allowed in a unit owner's policy.

As far as the faucet goes, as long as it was maintained normally (not negligently), and this was a sudden break, then somebody's property damage insurance should cover the damage from the leak. If the master policy has the coverage, then that insurance should pay for the property damage. The HOA does not need to own the faucet in order to obtain insurance for property damage to the units.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

I found the following by exploring the links from this page. This is from a CA law firm (not the state).
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Insurance-Menu
Insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
Non-insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
The board should be making a claim (stated in many places).
Insurance companies sometimes get it wrong (i.e., wrongly deny coverage)
You can go back to the insurance company again to try to get it right.
Owners can a get a copy of the association's insurance policy to read for themselves.
Owners can use a public adjuster to represent them.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

If Scott's claim hasn't been paid by either his or the HOA insurance and he feels he ha a case, my suggestion is seek legal help, maybe even the law firm he made reference to with the article.

I gave my professional opinion based on work experience.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/24/2018 4:36 PM
I found the following by exploring the links from this page. This is from a CA law firm (not the state).
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Insurance-Menu
Insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
Non-insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
The board should be making a claim (stated in many places).
Insurance companies sometimes get it wrong (i.e., wrongly deny coverage)
You can go back to the insurance company again to try to get it right.
Owners can a get a copy of the association's insurance policy to read for themselves.
Owners can use a public adjuster to represent them.

Owner "HO-6" Policy. Owners can be required to carry an HO-6 policy ("Homeowners 6" or "Condominium Unit Owner Policy"). Without it, condominium owners are exposed to loss and are more likely to sue the association to cover their losses. Moreover, the secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae) now requires protection for owners. Owners' insurance should cover the following:

Personal Property. This coverage insures unit contents such as furniture, clothing, dishes, appliances, computers, etc.. Owners with high value jewelry, art or collectibles will need a "scheduled or unscheduled floater."

Personal Liability. Even though associations carry premises liability for the common areas to cover claims for bodily injury or property damage, it does not cover injuries or damage inside an owner's unit. Condo owners must carry their own personal liability insurance in the event someone is injured in their condo. This should also cover injuries in neighboring units caused by fires or floods originating in an owner's unit.

Loss of Use. This protection pays for extra expenses (hotel, restaurants, etc.) while the owner's home is uninhabitable because of damage.

Loss Assessment. Loss assessment coverage that covers the owner's portion of special assessments levied by the association resulting from insured losses.

Walls-In. To satisfy FHA requirements, an owner's real property coverage needs to be a "walls-in" policy, instead of "bare walls." This insures improvements not covered by the association's master policy, such as hardwood floors, carpet, kitchen cabinets, plumbing and electrical fixtures, etc.

Earthquake Loss Assessment pays for losses related to an earthquake.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/24/2018 4:31 PM
The HOA does not need to own the faucet in order to obtain insurance for property damage to the units.

That's my understanding as well. The challenge is getting the HOA to realize that. On the other hand, if it is the case that I as a homeowner (and insured) can make a claim on the HOA insurance without authorization from the board, then the HOA's contradictory interpretation of the CC&Rs shouldn't be an impediment to my efforts.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JeffT2 on 10/24/2018 4:36 PM
I found the following by exploring the links from this page. This is from a CA law firm (not the state).
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Insurance-Menu
Insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
Non-insureds can make a claim on the association's policy.
The board should be making a claim (stated in many places).
Insurance companies sometimes get it wrong (i.e., wrongly deny coverage)
You can go back to the insurance company again to try to get it right.
Owners can a get a copy of the association's insurance policy to read for themselves.
Owners can use a public adjuster to represent them.

Very helpful. If there's no progress on either front (H0-6 or HOA), I will definitely look into a public adjuster.

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

Interesting. We have a master property insurance policy that covers the external building shells including roofs and the CC&Rs are pretty clear that homeowners only need to insure the insides of their units. Despite this, we have a handful of new owners who bought homes here in the last year or so and they purchased whole homeowners insurance (HO-3?) instead of an HO-6 policy.

Our documents don't prohibit that and even if they did, it's obvious those new homeowners didn't read the CC&Rs before buying. We'll probably have a problem if there's a major casualty event and the principle of "everything covered by a policy but nothing covered more than once" is violated. The insurance companies might point their fingers at each other for years before a settlement is reached.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 10/24/2018 9:54 PM
Interesting. We have a master property insurance policy that covers the external building shells including roofs and the CC&Rs are pretty clear that homeowners only need to insure the insides of their units. Despite this, we have a handful of new owners who bought homes here in the last year or so and they purchased whole homeowners insurance (HO-3?) instead of an HO-6 policy.

Our documents don't prohibit that and even if they did, it's obvious those new homeowners didn't read the CC&Rs before buying. We'll probably have a problem if there's a major casualty event and the principle of "everything covered by a policy but nothing covered more than once" is violated. The insurance companies might point their fingers at each other for years before a settlement is reached.

Very bizarre. At or about the time of purchase, I was specifically instructed to purchase "HO-6" before I even knew what it was. I'm not certain any reputable insurance company would have sold me HO-3 had I tried to purchase it. There may be some blame on the part of the insurance company that sells a policy it can't live up to. I assume you're in a condo and not a townhouse?

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Scott

Instead of asking questions on this site, you would be best served speaking with a reliable insurance agent. Based on the documents you provided, I am right in saying your unit is at fault, not the HOA and your unit alone bears full responsibility.

That being said, here is how insurance will work. An HOA, in California, is required by law and their governing to carry certain types of insurance policies. An agent will ask for the association's CCRs, for the liability portion, a balance sheet and a income statement, for the fidelity portion. The policy will be written as to what the CCRs, as they were written, in your case, 1972, requires the association to cover. Forget the terminology of tenant improvements and all improvements, as they mean nothing in your case. A master insurance policy is one that covers what is owned, in common, with all other unit owners.

Now, when you purchased your unit 5 years ago, the purchase was handled either by a escrow or title company. Part of the required documents that a buyer is legally bound to receive are the governing documents of the HOA and its master insurance policy. In the past, lenders didn't require that owner obtain a HO-6 policy to supplement the master policy, but now days that is now becoming more common. You find an agent, give them the HOA's agent's name and number and let them write a policy in conjunction to what the HOA has in place. NO two condos are going to be the same.

IF you feel the HOA should cover more or everything, it is within the power of the owners to make that happen. The consequences are that you will have sky high premiums and very large deductibles, but you can sleep better knowing that the HOA bears all responsibility. I have managed an HOA that did rewrite they CCRs and they have a mess on their hands. Their bed, they get to sleep in it.

I own a HOA property management. If I managed your property and this situation arose, I would instruct you to contact your insurance first. They in turn would contact the HOA insurance company, at which time the HOA insurance company would state it is not their responsibility. It is then up to your insurance to determine IF they have the right policy in place for you.

I see too m any owner rely on the HOA covering for their losses and not carry insurance on their own. Lenders are starting to get wise. Insurance companies are in the business to make money, LOTS of money. How do they do this? Charge a lot and pay as little as possible.

Here is a website you can check out, www.davis-stirling.com. You won't find an answer to your situation, because it's not there, but has very useful information.

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

Our master policy also includes the interior of the units in similar language. However, if I understand this case, which I may not correctly, but if I do it seems similar to the overflow valve going bad in my 35 year old bathtub. The originally installed bathtub.

I am responsible for the maintenance of that bathtub and all it's components. Was the overflow valve meant to work for 35 years? I would assume not. It may or may not have been replaced by prior owners, I don't know, but it still seems 'on me'.

Seems they could certainly argue, had I wanted to make a claim, that I had not maintained it properly by replacing that old component sooner.

Also, while I am not an insurance expert, water damage is tricky.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

Scott's posting in regards to insurance has to do with a fire policy in the event the unit and its contents have to be replaced.

This is the cartridge of a water faucet that went bad. It is exclusive use to just that individual owner. Sam would hold true if it was a water heater that broke because of age and caused the type of damage referenced with the faucet. Still owner responsibility unless someone can say the water regulator caused the cartridge to burst or the water heater to burst.That is why a owner needs an insurance agent.

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ScottH19 on 10/23/2018 1:31 PM
I sure can. By the way, thank you to all who have taken the time to comment.

I've extracted and attached here the 4 pages from the CC&Rs dealing with insurance. The attachment also includes page 2 of the CC&Rs which contains the definitions. Let me know if you can't access the attachment and I'll type out the language.

Bear in mind the issue here isn’t the “fire” insurance but rather the “other hazard” insurance referred to in the CC&Rs, p. 13, line 1 of paragraph 2.

To add context, I've lived in the 1972 condominium complex for about 5 years. In August of this year, I had water damage in my kitchen which was caused by a kitchen faucet cartridge that went bad. There was damage to the cabinets, adjacent drywall, and hardwood flooring. I have reason to believe the hardwood flooring was added by the previous owner from whom I purchased the unit. As to the cabinets (and countertops), or the kitchen walls as they current exist, I don't know if they were in place from the very beginning or added later. No damage to the common area or adjacent units.

My H0-6 insurance has relied on #2 on page 13 and # 4 on page 15 of the attachment in taking the position that: (1) the HOA insurance is the primary insurance for any part of the condominium (including the units themselves) that constitute the "original specifications" of the condominium; and (2) the H0-6 insurance is responsible for any "betterments" to the unit added by the owner (as if there would be a record of every single change made by all previous owners that occupied the unit before me).

As far as I can tell, my HOA is not acquainted with the notion that the CC&Rs govern who is supposed to insure what.

It is interesting that paragraph 1 on p. 12, which refers to “comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance” is meant to “insure against loss arising from perils in both common areas and the units,” while the “fire and other hazard insurance” is meant to insure “all of the improvements in the project [except what the individual owner can insure].” If the hazard insurance was meant to protect against hazards within the units themselves, why not say that as done for the “property damage” insurance?

How old was the cartridge and how long was it meant to last? I think this is analogous to my bathtub overflow valve and also the disposal that rusted through. I presume age was the cause in both cases, which is not a 'sudden and unexpected failure'. To me it was, but it might not be to an insurance adjuster.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/25/2018 12:07 PM
Scott

Instead of asking questions on this site, you would be best served speaking with a reliable insurance agent. Based on the documents you provided, I am right in saying your unit is at fault, not the HOA and your unit alone bears full responsibility.

That being said, here is how insurance will work. An HOA, in California, is required by law and their governing to carry certain types of insurance policies. An agent will ask for the association's CCRs, for the liability portion, a balance sheet and a income statement, for the fidelity portion. The policy will be written as to what the CCRs, as they were written, in your case, 1972, requires the association to cover. Forget the terminology of tenant improvements and all improvements, as they mean nothing in your case. A master insurance policy is one that covers what is owned, in common, with all other unit owners.

Now, when you purchased your unit 5 years ago, the purchase was handled either by a escrow or title company. Part of the required documents that a buyer is legally bound to receive are the governing documents of the HOA and its master insurance policy. In the past, lenders didn't require that owner obtain a HO-6 policy to supplement the master policy, but now days that is now becoming more common. You find an agent, give them the HOA's agent's name and number and let them write a policy in conjunction to what the HOA has in place. NO two condos are going to be the same.

IF you feel the HOA should cover more or everything, it is within the power of the owners to make that happen. The consequences are that you will have sky high premiums and very large deductibles, but you can sleep better knowing that the HOA bears all responsibility. I have managed an HOA that did rewrite they CCRs and they have a mess on their hands. Their bed, they get to sleep in it.

I own a HOA property management. If I managed your property and this situation arose, I would instruct you to contact your insurance first. They in turn would contact the HOA insurance company, at which time the HOA insurance company would state it is not their responsibility. It is then up to your insurance to determine IF they have the right policy in place for you.

I see too m any owner rely on the HOA covering for their losses and not carry insurance on their own. Lenders are starting to get wise. Insurance companies are in the business to make money, LOTS of money. How do they do this? Charge a lot and pay as little as possible.

Here is a website you can check out, www.davis-stirling.com. You won't find an answer to your situation, because it's not there, but has very useful information.

Richard, I appreciate the information, and the link. By "reliable insurance agent," do you mean a public adjuster? I posted questions on this site to get some clarity and preliminary direction from disinterested parties. Assuming there's coverage for my loss (whether thru HO-6 or HOA ins.), either my insurance company or the HOA must be wrong, and I had no reliable source to discuss this with, so I posted on this site.

The first time I contacted the HOA about the damage was when my HO-6 insurance instructed me to. It wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Just a few weeks ago, the concept of an HOA's insurance policy covering for damages limited to a single unit was foreign to me.

On some level, I do feel my HO-6 insurance company is wrong. After several emails back and forth with the adjuster, I just learned that they don't even know which of the damaged items in my unit constitute "original specifications" vs "improvements." Their "investigation" as to what's original and what was added was limited to asking me (and I've only been there 5 years) and checking out Zillow and Redfin. That was the extent of their investigation before denying my claim. It's one thing if distinguishing between improvements and tenants' improvements is not appropriate for my HO-6 claim, but it's another thing altogether when the insurance insists that coverage depends on distinguishing between the two but barely lifts a finger to ascertain which is which. But I digress, and this is an HOA forum, not an insurance forum.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JenniferG11 on 10/25/2018 2:12 PM
How old was the cartridge and how long was it meant to last? I think this is analogous to my bathtub overflow valve and also the disposal that rusted through. I presume age was the cause in both cases, which is not a 'sudden and unexpected failure'. To me it was, but it might not be to an insurance adjuster.

I have no clue. I didn't even know what a sink cartridge was before mine went bad. You may be right about the two cases being analogous. However, in terms of coverage, I don't think it matters that the cartridge underwent a "sudden and unexpected failure" but rather whether the leak itself was "sudden and unexpected."

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 10/24/2018 9:54 PM
Interesting. We have a master property insurance policy that covers the external building shells including roofs and the CC&Rs are pretty clear that homeowners only need to insure the insides of their units. Despite this, we have a handful of new owners who bought homes here in the last year or so and they purchased whole homeowners insurance (HO-3?) instead of an HO-6 policy.

Our documents don't prohibit that and even if they did, it's obvious those new homeowners didn't read the CC&Rs before buying. We'll probably have a problem if there's a major casualty event and the principle of "everything covered by a policy but nothing covered more than once" is violated. The insurance companies might point their fingers at each other for years before a settlement is reached.

I think insurance companies don't even seem to know what is going on. So our docs (and Texas LAW) mandate that the master policy be primary in the event of a fire or other disaster. And yet when we had a fire, not a single insurance company pointed to the master policy.

They rebuilt the entirety of the units, including the parts that were supposed to be covered by the master policy.

Everyone is always shocked to find out our docs say this, and that we have the coverage, including my insurance agent.

I called to ask what does this new knowledge I have mean for me? Do I not need as much coverage? She said she never heard of a master policy covering ANYthing on the inside. I was like it's a law, I am lost.

Same thing with the rep for our HOA master policy. He said he has never read governing documents with that language. I was like but ours have it. And it's a law. It's been the law since 1994.

Honestly I felt like I didn't understand English for a while.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

While not directly on subject, our HOA consists of standalone homes. We require each home carry its own homeowners insurance with the HOA being named as co-payee on any claims. This is to prevent one getting insurance claim money and not repairing the problem. We have had many insurance agents say this is not right, illegal, etc. but as soon as our lawyer sends them a letter, it happens.

Do not let an insurance agent play lawyer for or against you. If in doubt, lawyer up.

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ScottH19 on 10/25/2018 2:49 PM

Posted By RichardP13 on 10/25/2018 12:07 PM
Scott

Instead of asking questions on this site, you would be best served speaking with a reliable insurance agent. Based on the documents you provided, I am right in saying your unit is at fault, not the HOA and your unit alone bears full responsibility.

That being said, here is how insurance will work. An HOA, in California, is required by law and their governing to carry certain types of insurance policies. An agent will ask for the association's CCRs, for the liability portion, a balance sheet and a income statement, for the fidelity portion. The policy will be written as to what the CCRs, as they were written, in your case, 1972, requires the association to cover. Forget the terminology of tenant improvements and all improvements, as they mean nothing in your case. A master insurance policy is one that covers what is owned, in common, with all other unit owners.

Now, when you purchased your unit 5 years ago, the purchase was handled either by a escrow or title company. Part of the required documents that a buyer is legally bound to receive are the governing documents of the HOA and its master insurance policy. In the past, lenders didn't require that owner obtain a HO-6 policy to supplement the master policy, but now days that is now becoming more common. You find an agent, give them the HOA's agent's name and number and let them write a policy in conjunction to what the HOA has in place. NO two condos are going to be the same.

IF you feel the HOA should cover more or everything, it is within the power of the owners to make that happen. The consequences are that you will have sky high premiums and very large deductibles, but you can sleep better knowing that the HOA bears all responsibility. I have managed an HOA that did rewrite they CCRs and they have a mess on their hands. Their bed, they get to sleep in it.

I own a HOA property management. If I managed your property and this situation arose, I would instruct you to contact your insurance first. They in turn would contact the HOA insurance company, at which time the HOA insurance company would state it is not their responsibility. It is then up to your insurance to determine IF they have the right policy in place for you.

I see too m any owner rely on the HOA covering for their losses and not carry insurance on their own. Lenders are starting to get wise. Insurance companies are in the business to make money, LOTS of money. How do they do this? Charge a lot and pay as little as possible.

Here is a website you can check out, www.davis-stirling.com. You won't find an answer to your situation, because it's not there, but has very useful information.

Richard, I appreciate the information, and the link. By "reliable insurance agent," do you mean a public adjuster? I posted questions on this site to get some clarity and preliminary direction from disinterested parties. Assuming there's coverage for my loss (whether thru HO-6 or HOA ins.), either my insurance company or the HOA must be wrong, and I had no reliable source to discuss this with, so I posted on this site.

The first time I contacted the HOA about the damage was when my HO-6 insurance instructed me to. It wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Just a few weeks ago, the concept of an HOA's insurance policy covering for damages limited to a single unit was foreign to me.

On some level, I do feel my HO-6 insurance company is wrong. After several emails back and forth with the adjuster, I just learned that they don't even know which of the damaged items in my unit constitute "original specifications" vs "improvements." Their "investigation" as to what's original and what was added was limited to asking me (and I've only been there 5 years) and checking out Zillow and Redfin. That was the extent of their investigation before denying my claim. It's one thing if distinguishing between improvements and tenants' improvements is not appropriate for my HO-6 claim, but it's another thing altogether when the insurance insists that coverage depends on distinguishing between the two but barely lifts a finger to ascertain which is which. But I digress, and this is an HOA forum, not an insurance forum.

That is unfortunate. Here, it's super easy to tell. I can look at photos of any unit for sale or walk through one and identify precisely everything that is an upgrade. Except for the exact type of flooring in the kitchens and bathrooms, I and many others here know the original stuff down to the brand names of the appliances. I presume linoleum for kitchens and bathrooms. Carpet for the rest for sure.

Many people have kept the original cabinets and counter tops and so forth, again, it's easy to tell.

We did have a fire and the master policy had to build (or has to, I haven't checked on that hot button issue lately) the interior. Of course they cannot get Kenmore appliances circa 1980's or the exact type of flooring, but their guide is going to be carpet and linoleum, and appliances that are similar. Some people say the appliances should be the cheapest that can be bought. I beg to differ, as the originals were not the cheapest, but basically we're on the same page on all that.

People who have granite counter tops, wood floors, fancier appliances, and so forth, that is not going to be replaced by the master policy. Those are the owner improvements for individual policies to cover.

Yours are older, but someone somewhere has to have knowledge of the original specs.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnC46 on 10/25/2018 4:57 PM
While not directly on subject, our HOA consists of standalone homes. We require each home carry its own homeowners insurance with the HOA being named as co-payee on any claims. This is to prevent one getting insurance claim money and not repairing the problem. We have had many insurance agents say this is not right, illegal, etc. but as soon as our lawyer sends them a letter, it happens.

Do not let an insurance agent play lawyer for or against you. If in doubt, lawyer up.

I actually am a lawyer but have no experience or knowledge in this area, except bits of insight gained over the past couple weeks. I think I will treat getting a lawyer as my absolute last resort.

ScottH19 (California)
Posts: 24

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JenniferG11 on 10/25/2018 5:03 PM

That is unfortunate. Here, it's super easy to tell. I can look at photos of any unit for sale or walk through one and identify precisely everything that is an upgrade. Except for the exact type of flooring in the kitchens and bathrooms, I and many others here know the original stuff down to the brand names of the appliances. I presume linoleum for kitchens and bathrooms. Carpet for the rest for sure.

Many people have kept the original cabinets and counter tops and so forth, again, it's easy to tell.

We did have a fire and the master policy had to build (or has to, I haven't checked on that hot button issue lately) the interior. Of course they cannot get Kenmore appliances circa 1980's or the exact type of flooring, but their guide is going to be carpet and linoleum, and appliances that are similar. Some people say the appliances should be the cheapest that can be bought. I beg to differ, as the originals were not the cheapest, but basically we're on the same page on all that.

People who have granite counter tops, wood floors, fancier appliances, and so forth, that is not going to be replaced by the master policy. Those are the owner improvements for individual policies to cover.

Yours are older, but someone somewhere has to have knowledge of the original specs.

Anyone looking at my hardwood floors would realize immediately that they're not original to the unit. It may not look like it was installed in the last few weeks, but no one could reasonably believe the floors are 40+ years old. The cabinets and countertops - that's less clear. They don't look "new." But I can't tell the difference between 30 years old and 40 years old. In any case my insurance company seems to have turned a blind eye to what's original and what's not.

I agree that the original specs should be available somewhere. Just a little ticked off and concerned that my insurance company isn't interested in seeing them.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868

Posted:

You might want to read the article below.

https://www.allstate.com/tools-and-resources/condo-insurance/condo-water-damage.aspx

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

I can't tell if cabinets are 20 or 30 years old either, I can tell what OUR originals look like. Someone in your place has got to have this intel.

I can walk into any unit and immediately identify every single thing that is not original. As can many other people. There has to be people like that there.

OR at least knowledge like 'Original flooring was carpet and laminate'. Things like that.

As old as yours are like mine, there have to be people who have never updated much. Only replaced things that literally became non-functional.