In general, if the loss is covered by insurance so are our fees. Though some insurers or adjusters can be a bit cool to this idea the vast majority understand that they save money when a professional project manager is involved. Our fees are most certainly covered whenever the source of the loss is deemed to be from an individual unit, its occupants, guests or vendors (e.g. a mover who strikes the head of a fire sprinkler while moving a sofa, an electrician who steps on the sprinkler line, a plumber who snaps off the shut-off valve, a tenant who overfills the washing machine and so on).

NOTE: A loss is covered up to the policy limit.

Yes. Not only do we carry General Liability coverage we are also insured for Errors and Omissions. Most importantly, we ARE insured to work for or within HOA’s, OA’s and other multi-family residential buildings. When shopping for project management services choose carefully as not all providers of such services as insured for Errors and Omissions. Be especially leery of any who do not have this coverage or tell you that they cannot be insured for Errors and Omissions.

An additional insured is the party an insured adds to their policy for the duration of their work. For example, any licensed contractor, electrician, plumber, painter working on the property should list the property owner (association/landlord) as an “additional insured”. (read more) This provision provides the first line of defense to the property owner from claims against them when their vendor causes damage to the property of another. For example, if the plumber for the association was working on the water supply line and accidentally caused a leak which damaged the home of another, the owner of that home(condo/apartment) could pursue the plumber AND the association since the association hired the plumber. It does not matter that management called the plumber in as they are an agent of the association or landlord. When listed as an additional insured the association/landlord could tender the defense of the claim of the condo owner to the insurer of the plumber. That insurer would then settle or defend the claim up to the policy limit; usually $1,000,000.00. The benefit to the association is that their claims history is not negatively impacted since the insurer of the plumber will be the one paying up to the policy limit.

It is in the best interest of associations and landlords that they always be listed as additional insured on the policy of any trade person working anywhere on their property. This is true even when the work is within an individual condo by someone hired by the unit owner, their agent or tenant. That is because the plumber hired by the condo owner, agent or their tenant could just as easily cause a leak that damages the common area. In such situations, most want the insurer of the plumber to pay for everything be it dry out, abatement or restoration. There is no additional cost to the association/landlord to be named as an additional insured. It is simply a best business practice.

The vast majority of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereafter C.C. & R’s) hold that if a leak emanates from something within a condo that the owner of that condo was obligated to maintain, that owner and their insurer are responsible for the cost of dry out, abatement and restoration. Please allow the following to flesh this out further.

If the component that failed serves the common area then the maintenance of it falls to the association. The associations policy would cover damage to the common area, whether in shared areas or within the units. And, the policy for the owner of the unit or tenant would cover damage to personal property. For the unit owner that might include paint, flooring and cabinetry. For a tenant, that would mean things like their sofa, area rug or mattress.

An exception to the association being liable would be if an owner or their guest caused the damage. For example, one of those parties flushed paper towels down the toilet. The resulting backup caused damage to the common area within that condo as well as between floors and of the common area within the unit below. That owner and their insurer would be responsible to the association for its cost of remediation (dry out), abatement (removal of any lead or asbestos that was disturbed), restoration and project management (oversight of it all). This exception presumes the owner or their tenant admitted their error or the associations plumber extracted the blockage from the toilet or by pulling the toilet up.

As an aside, please know the owner is liable to the association for the actions of their family members, guests, tenants and invitees.

If the failing or failed component is within an individual condo or serves that unit exclusively (shower valve in the wall), it is the owner of that condo who is responsible to maintain it. Failure by either party to be proactive in their maintenance obligations leaves that party negligent and therefore liable for the damage to the common area*.

The same analysis may be applied to every component that leaks or allows seepage such as failed angle stop, shutoff valve, garbage disposal, toilet, sink, bathtub, dishwasher, washing machine, ice maker, shower valve, waste overflow or seepage through the grout of the shower walls or floor.

* Absent some intervening act, whoever has a duty to maintain may be considered negligent if they were not proactive. A duty to maintain does not mean “wait until it leaks or breaks” as that is no maintenance at all. To help hone in on this point, most of us would not wait until the motor of our car burned up before having the oil changed. We would proactively schedule oil changes to avoid the ramifications. Those who fail to maintain their car soon learn a very expensive lesson about the importance of understanding how to maintain that which they own. The same principle applies to whatever we own. And, with the many search engines of the internet available to most of us today, finding answers to our questions is fairly easy. In the alternative, turn to experts such as the plumber who services the building.

Without more, it would appear that management was guiding the board on a subject that is beyond their area of expertise. Based on the information that you shared, one of those losses arose from the action of a resident and the other because an owner failed to proactively maintain that which they were to responsible for. Typically, this is defined by what is located within the airspace of the condo or that serve it exclusively (shower valve, fireplace, furnace). For the very concerns raised an association and its members should never be responsible to absorb a loss, or the impact of one, which arose from the action or inaction of a resident. Or, from a component that an owner was responsible to maintain but failed to. Here, the person who left the bathtub unattended is clearly liable. Accordingly, he and his insurer would be 100% responsible for your associations expense. Submitting this type of loss against the associations insurer likely prevented the association and its carrier from pursuing reimbursement. This is because many C.C & R’s contain a Waiver of Subrogation clause. This means the association and member may not pursue claims against the other. HOWEVER, it is important to note that the defense of Waiver of Subrogation is ONLY triggered when the association elects to collects from its insurer. Had they been properly advised they should have pursued coverage under the Liability portion of the policy held by the errant owner. This type of claim is referred to as a Third-Party Claim. The third-party being the association or any other affected owner who is not the insurer or the named insured.

In your first example, the owner left a filling tub unattended. But for his leaving the tub unattended the loss would not have occurred. That is the purest form of negligence from which no one may defend.

Your second example involves a supply line and its end that cracked thereby allowing water to affect 20 plus condos. This would require a bit more analysis. If a plumber was working on the supply line at the time and cracked it, they and their insurer would be 100% liable to your association (all the more reason the association should be certain the plumber is insured to work in associations or multi-residential buildings).

If the crack occurred without anyone touching it, one has to inquire as to the age of the supply line. Was it new? If so, the manufacturer might be liable unless they can show that excessive force was used during installation. If the manufacture established that the hose was new but excessive force was used, the owner of the supply line, the installer and respective insurers would have been liable to the association. Finally, if the crack occurred due to the part aging out (usually between one and five-years), we are back to the owner of that supply line being liable for the loss because they failed to proactively maintain what they were obligated to maintain. We can make this assertion because a supply line to sinks, bidets, toilets, dishwasher, washing machine and refrigerator are clearly located within a unit. Further, they serve that unit exclusively.

Based on the above we strongly believe management erred when they advised the board to file all claims against the associations policy. Their error resulted in the association and its members being harmed financially for years to come. Continuing to be misguided by management sets the association and its members up for further significant increases in their premiums, having to carry even greater deductibles like $50,000 per loss or losing coverage altogether. This is because the more claims an insured has the more money the insurer losses. And, insurers are not in the business to lose money.

It was good of you to question the board. Perhaps the board should ask the management company to open a claim against their own Errors & Admissions policy on behalf of your association. We believe the management company and their insurer will be hard pressed to defend their advice. Moreover, every policy covering home owner, condo owner and tenant automatically includes coverage for Personal Liability. The basic amount is $100,000 however we advise parties carry at least $500,000 as the cost of a loss affecting multiple units can easily hit $500,000 or more. That personal liability is there to protect that insured from claims by Third Parties (association or affected neighbors) when they forget and leave the bathtub filling or forgot to have the plumber perform a regular inspection of all things plumbing. Given this policy provision there is absolutely no reason to have the association cover the mistakes or failures of others. Let their insurance pay and their rates or deductible rise. After all, they caused the loss.

Because too many associations have this clause in their C.C. & Rs we feel it necessary for all to understand that this is not an absolute defense by an errant owner. It is ONLY a defense when the association decides to collect on the loss against its own policy. There is NO RULE or LAW that requires an association collect from their own insurance. They must timely report the loss. However, they are not obligated to pursue the claim and are permitted to return proceeds if their carrier advanced funds. Because the associations carrier could not pursue the rightful third-parties they were ultimately forced to increase the associations premium and deductible. If your association continues to follow the advice of management, they will ultimately lose their coverage. Once that happens, they will be forced to purchase higher risk coverage at an even higher premium and accept a substantial deductible. This means members will see notable increased in regular assessments and the levying of special assessments.

What the board should do is turn to their insurer directly and engage the services of a very savvy Construction & Project Management company like Pinnacle Reconstruction. At Pinnacle we are quick to determine causation, identify who owned that which resulted in the loss, ascertain what duty was owed and by whom and whether an owner, guest, tenant or invitee was in any way negligent. Pursuing third party claims against the liability coverage of others helped us recover more than $1,000,000 in 2019.

At Pinnacle Reconstruction we do not feel that your association or other owners should pay because a neighbor left their filling bathtub unattended or failed to proactively maintain what they are required to. Why should the association and the other owners subsidize errant behavior? Why should that owner and their insurer escape their responsibility to make your association and its members whole? What would motivate that errant member to change their ways? Being held financially responsible!

Ask us how we can save your association from seeing increased premiums and substantial deductibles that are then passed on to the owners.

Absolutely! A tenant is just as likely to leave a bathtub overflowing, clog their toilet or drain or leave candles burning and unattended. Imagine if the resulting loss cost $100,000 and they were uninsured? Do you have the wherewithal to cover that loss? Does the tenant have sufficient assets to pursue or will they take flight thereby leaving you to pursue them through the court and wage garnishment? If the latter, just how many years will it take for you to collect that $100,000? Rather than go through any of that additional stress, we urge that you make it a condition of every lease and rental agreement. Moreover, the minimum they should carry is $100,000 for personal property (we will explain below) and $500,000 of personal liability. Owners of higher end properties should require a minimum of $1,000,000 of personal liability.

The reason that a tenant should carry $100,000 of coverage on their personal property is not because their possessions are worth that much. It is because other coverages that make up the policy have limits which are based on a percentage of that $100,000. For example, loss of use would be covered up to 20% of the $100,000 or $20,000. Here, that would mean the tenant could collect up to $20,000 for temporary housing that is the result of a covered loss. With the rents in San Francisco being what they are, $20,000 only represents the cost of temporary housing for about four to six months. If there was a fire in the building that displaced your tenant, it might be six-months to a year before the building or unit is again ready for occupancy. Therefore, having $20,000 in protection is worth the added cost of carrying $100,000 of coverage on their personal property.

The reason for requiring that a tenant carry $500,000 in personal liability is to protect you and your policy from clams on that first $500,000. If the tenant or their guest caused the underlying loss you want their insurance, not yours, to pay for the damage. As with the answer to the question above, you do not want to risk higher premiums, deductible or loss of coverage as the result of the actions or inaction of your tenant. And, since the cost to increase personal liability is so very minimal this requirement is a must for any landlord who wishes to protect their bottom line.

Be certain that your tenant lists you on their policy as an Additional Insured. This means that the tenants insurance provides the first line of defense of you for claims by another tenant or neighbor. At least up to the $500,000 limit. If a loss is extensive or involves loss of life, that $500,000 will not likely be insufficient. However, $500,000 should cover the vast majority of losses.

By listing you as an Additional Insured, the carrier must notify you in writing if the policy cancels for any reasons. This will protect you from that tenant who purchases the policy to appease you then promptly cancels it after they have the keys or moves in. Aditionally, since carrying insurance was a condition of the lease or rental agreement, it would be breach of the lease or rental agreement if they canceled the policy or let it lapse.