Miami condo collapse

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by jyl

Some good insurance experience here, so let me throw out this question: will we see a wave of insurers cancelling policies on older Florida condos now, or as the suddenly urgent and stringent 40 year inspections happen? If you’re an insurer, aren’t you going to obtain and examine every such inspection report and yank coverage if anything at all looks even a little amiss? There’s plenty of buildings to insure, why mess with 40+ year old condos?

And some good engineering experience, so another question: will there be enough engineering firms willing to do the 40 year inspections? If you’re a peer of Frank Moriboto (sp), and see him sucked into a massive hell of lawsuits for his thorough 2018 report, do you want to take that risk yourself? Indemnification or waiver of claims by the condo association won’t protect you, almost nothing you can say in your report will prevent your being sued, and the fee for inspections surely isn’t enough to be worth jeopardizing your future?

For sure there will be a wave of cancellations and new underwriting guidelines as a result of this event. The cancellations will not just occur in Florida it will have a ripple effect everywhere and in all buildings with similar construction. Remember a condominium is not a type of building but a form of ownership. How many parking garages, hotels, office buildings around the country have similar construction as this building? Every casino in Atlantic City, NJ is as old as this building except one. In addition to the salty ocean air and sun as this building they deal with the harsh environment of winter with freezing and thawing, ice buildup and tons of corrosive salt being dumped on horizontal surfaces every year.

I am sure moving forward every renewal will come with a requirement of an engineers report before coverage will be offered and some renewal proposals have already been rescinded pending a satisfactory engineers report. Some companies may still offer a renewal but will specifically exclude losses related to this type of event.

As an example after 9/11 all insurers (that I am aware of) excluded terrorism. Any event labeled by the Government as "terrorism" was excluded. But, you could buy terrorism coverage for an additional premium. So the Boston Marathon bombing, the damaged buildings if they did not purchase terrorism coverage did not have coverage.

We have buildings we insure with older roofs (20 years) or roofs that are damaged. The insurer will issue a policy but excludes the roof and damage to the property as a result of the roof. Some carriers will offer coverage if the roof is inspected by a licensed roofer and provides a report the roof is in sound condition.

We have some carriers with tiered deductibles or exclusions based on events. Wind is an example. If the storm is an every day thunder storm there is one deductible if your property is damaged by wind. If the storm gets assigned a name that triggers the endorsement and the deductible changes or in some cases cancels wind coverage for that event.

It is even possible moving forward losses like this may be uninsurable in the open market and the Government will need to step in as is the case (until recently) with flood insurance.

[Fast Freddy 944]

I heard that the navy was testing a shock wave weapon off shore, 2 cents..

[URY914]

Originally Posted by Fast Freddy 944

I heard that the navy was testing a shock wave weapon off shore, 2 cents..

I read about this too. That was a long way away and said to have nothing to do with it.

[David]

I doubt the navy tests did any building damage but I do wonder about the construction next door. Did they bore the pilings or drive the pilings? From the stories going around about complaints during construction it sounds like the drove the pilings. Good thing the HOA didn't accept their $400k offer which would likely have signed off any damaged caused by the construction.

Lots of people going to be sued over this. I imagine the City of Surfside is going to take a heavy hit since it sounds like they were slow walking the permits and down played the severity of the engineering report to the HOA.


I expect there will be major inspections of the sister building since they are similar if not identical designs built at the same time by the same construction company. They will be able to remove whole columns from the sister building if needed to determine if there are construction flaws.

[sugarwood]

Millennium Tower: Surfside catastrophe raises concerns about San Francisco's sinking building

But, since it opened, the hulking blue-gray tower has sunk 18 inches into the soft downtown soil on which it was built -- and it's tilting, according to the Millennium's current engineer, Ronald Hamburger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/surfside-catastrophe-raises-concerns-about-san-francisco-s-sinking-millennium-tower/ar-AALOjig?ocid=msedgntp&pfr=1

[HobieMarty]

Seems to me with all of this insurance talk, the first thing to be determined is the root cause of the collapse.

Repeated salt water intrusion weakening the structural integrity of the columns and other parts of the pool deck?
Lack of maintenance?
Design flaws?
All of the above?

Full disclosure, I know nothing about insurance policies for condominiums but I would think that they would first have to come to a conclusion about what caused the building's collapse.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[LEAKYSEALS951]

perhaps shared before- some good info and technical diagrams.



More mayhem in the world of YT highrise newsfeed suggestions:


I like my ranch.

[stevej37]

https://twitter.com/hkfp/status/1394561276710248449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1394561276710248449%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.pelicanparts.com%2Foff-topic-discussions%2F1094099-any-need-worry.html

[MBAtarga]

Let's say that repairs had been made in a timely fashion, but the building still failed unexpectedly. Then the county/gov comes in and demos the rest of the building. Would HOA insurance pay claims for those units that were demoed?

[drcoastline]

You all may find this interesting reading. It addresses collapse regarding insurance and how it has evolved through the years. It will also address GH85Carerras comments as well. Unfortunately I think most of these people will be SOL unless they can find culpability someplace else to go after liability to pay for their losses.

https://www.adjustersinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/3039_Insurance_Coverage_for_Collapse.pdf

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

Let's say that repairs had been made in a timely fashion, but the building still failed unexpectedly. Then the county/gov comes in and demos the rest of the building. Would HOA insurance pay claims for those units that were demoed?

The short answer is no. There could be recourse against a contractor, architect, engineer, or the city in that scenario. But again in short those units did not sustain damage as a result of a covered peril.

Take your house for example if you had a fire and half burnt down, the insurance pays for that half if the city then requires you to tear down the other half the carrier will take the position we understand, but it was not damaged. This is where the ordinance or law coverage comes into play and [U]would[U]pick up coverage to the O/L coverage limit.

EDIT
Let me also include the HOA property insurance DOES NOT cover the units. It covers association owned property, the common and limited common elements. Common elements might include the main structure, pool, pool deck, lobby, grounds etc. Limited common elements may include balconies, entrance doors to units, maybe even a parking space. This is all subject to the master deed and by-laws. UNITS- have a separate policy for the owners property and possessions, this is known as an HO-6 (think homeowners policy with out covering the house.)

[jyl]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

The short answer is no. There could be recourse against a contractor, architect, engineer, or the city in that scenario. But again in short those units did not sustain damage as a result of a covered peril.

Take your house for example if you had a fire and half burnt down, the insurance pays for that half if the city then requires you to tear down the other half the carrier will take the position we understand, but it was not damaged. This is where the ordinance or law coverage comes into play and [U]would[U]pick up coverage to the O/L coverage limit.

Thanks for all your input in this thread. I'm learning a lot about insurance.

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by HobieMarty

Seems to me with all of this insurance talk, the first thing to be determined is the root cause of the collapse.

Repeated salt water intrusion weakening the structural integrity of the columns and other parts of the pool deck?
Lack of maintenance?
Design flaws?
All of the above?

Full disclosure, I know nothing about insurance policies for condominiums but I would think that they would first have to come to a conclusion about what caused the building's collapse.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Of course, but regardless, for coverage to be triggered the root cause must be a covered peril.

But even with a covered peril (which at this stage doesn't appear to be) the next major hurdle that appears to be developing against the association is what appears to be the root cause of the collapse failure at support 78 under the pool deck was known to the association which then excludes coverage.

[URY914]

Can someone tell me this:

At what point in time does a new condo building transfer from the developer to the Condo Board for control of the building?
When the last of the original units are sold?
The developer cashes the check and is free and clear and from here on it's the board's responsibility?
How is this transfer done?

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by URY914

Can someone tell me this:

At what point in time does a new condo building transfer from the developer to the Condo Board for control of the building?
When the last of the original units are sold?
The developer cashes the check and is free and clear and from here on it's the board's responsibility?
How is this transfer done?

There are different factors depending on the property being developed.

But in short the transfer takes place as each unit is sold. Again, a condominium is a form of ownership not a type of building. Technically control transfers when 51% of the units are sold as the majority vote is now in the hands of the unit owners not the developer. The developers control will diminish as each unit gets sold off. When 51% is sold off the developer still holds the largest investment in the association property, so the by-laws are written in such a manner as to protect the developer. This is designed so the new owners can not come in and take control of the property. Unfortunately in most associations the by-laws are never amended to reflect the developer is now out of the picture. So it becomes a tangled mess trying to decipher where one ownership stops and another begins, what is association property and responsibility and what is unit ownership and responsibility.

I would think in a property like this going back to inception the building could not get a C/O unit all systems maintaining the building were operational? This would mean while lower floor units may be finished they could not close until the upper floors were secured and all systems in the building turned on.

Also new construction has a warranty called 2/10. The first two years the developer pays for repairs (assuming the "developer" is still in business) then the warranty company takes over for the remaining eight years. Many large developments are built through a corporation that has no assets. Everything is sub'd out. So something goes wrong you sue the corporation the corporation files bankruptcy and that is that. The person who created the corporation creates a new corporation and moves on to the next project.

Oh and FYI- Condominiums are developed because it allows a developer greater density for a given parcel of land. They would not go through the cost of creating a condominium if they could just sell you a house or an apartment.

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by jyl

Thanks for all your input in this thread. I'm learning a lot about insurance.

Sure thing I hope it helps.

[javadog]

If condo bylaws are as badly written as typical HOA bylaws, god help them sorting out the mess.

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by javadog

If condo bylaws are as badly written as typical HOA bylaws, god help them sorting out the mess.

They are. they're written by the same people. Or should I say copied and pasted?

[javadog]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

Did you see the pool deck damage?

Can you elaborate on what it is that you saw, or maybe let me know what point in the video you noticed it?

[john70t]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

Again, a condominium is a form of ownership not a type of building. Technically control transfers when 51% of the units are sold as the majority vote is now in the hands of the unit owners not the developer. The developers control will diminish as each unit gets sold off. When 51% is sold off the developer still holds the largest investment in the association property, so the by-laws are written in such a manner as to protect the developer. This is designed so the new owners can not come in and take control of the property..

I once bought into a condo building.
-Several years later, owners still hadn't received any financial statements or had an annual meeting.

-When we did get limited records (only with a lawsuit) it showed we were flat broke and all our money continued to flow to a management company which had been fired long before.

-Also the Developer hadn't been paying dues on his own third of the building and had been 'voting' himself in as President and on all other matters acted unilaterally, despite the fact that units in delinquency did not have that right per the by-laws. He was a real piece of work.

-A true mess. Quorum was rarely achieved. Owners either stopped paying dues altogether and foreclosed and/or turned on one another.

-Meanwhile, for several years the roof continued to leak because the 'fired' management company had been putting holes in the worn out bitumen. I witnessed them doing a lot of work inside the Developer's units. Three of my rooms had the ceilings caving in and there was a literal waterfall traveling down the main entryway steps at one point. The central heating boiler was left on one summer and it was about a hundred degrees inside the units. Trash everywhere. Things falling apart.

-The place should have been condemned, but for various reasons the owners collectively did not feel inclined to consolidate as one and fix the problem.