Insurance

Asked and Answered: Paying for Increased HOA Insurance Premiums

Published on: March 3, 2023 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Our insurance was cancelled and with the new policy the premium sky rocketed. There is not enough money in the operating account or budget to pay for the new premium. Can we pay from reserves?

Answered – California has suffered significant wildfire damage in recent years. Coupled with several years of severe drought and increased wildfire risk, fewer and fewer insurance companies are willing to write policies for communities that may experience wildfire damage. In addition, admitted carriers are highly regulated by the Department of Insurance, which limits the amounts they may charge for insurance premiums. This has caused many associations to be cancelled or non-renewed by admitted carriers or those in the “primary” market.

As a result, HOAs are left to purchase insurance from the non-admitted or “surplus” market. Carriers in the surplus market are less regulated and, when demand is high and supply is low, prices skyrocket. The HOA’s CC&Rs generally include language specifying that the association “shall” purchase insurance, and may require coverage to provide for “full replacement cost.” If the association does not purchase the insurance as required by the governing documents, the association and its board of directors could be exposed to liability for failure to obtain adequate coverage.

So, what is an HOA to do if it doesn’t have the money to pay for the skyrocketed insurance premiums? Yes, an HOA may temporarily borrow funds from reserves in this situation without membership approval because this act would be needed to “meet short-term cash flow requirements or other expenses.” (Civ. Code § 5515(a).) This action should only be taken with the guidance from the association’s legal counsel due to the significant procedural requirements that must be satisfied under Civil Code section 5515. Those requirements include, among others, providing the membership with notice of the board’s intent to borrow the funds. The notice must additionally include the reasons the transfer is needed, the options for repayment, a description of how the funds will be restored to the reserve account within one (1) year of the date of the transfer, and a whether a special assessment will be utilized for that purpose.

A special assessment will likely be the mechanism utilized to restore the borrowed reserve funds. However, special assessments greater than five percent (5%) of an HOA’s annual budget cannot be imposed without membership approval. Civil Code section 5605 fortunately exempts boards from having to comply with this membership approval requirement in situations where the special assessment (regardless of its amount) is needed to address an emergency expense which “could not have reasonably been foreseen by the board when preparing and distributing the annual budget report.” While this emergency special assessment could allow for the board to restore the borrowed reserve funds the first time, the question then becomes whether levying a similar assessment in future years would remain a legally valid option as the assessment would no longer be tied to an unforeseen expense. HOAs should therefore consult with legal counsel on this issue before imposing an emergency special assessment to understand its implications on future budget planning.

HOAs should also consult with legal counsel and their association’s insurance professionals for guidance as to how the increased premium expense may be mitigated carrying forward. For example, boards may be able to reduce their association’s insurance premiums by increasing deductible amounts. To illustrate, if the HOA has a $5,000 deductible, an increase to $25,000 or higher may be sufficient to generate a significant premium decrease under the master policy. That is because more risk (the higher deductible amount) is being transferred from the association’s master carrier onto the individual homeowners and the carriers of their respective HO-6 insurance policies. The HO-6 (aka “unit owner’s insurance”) policies are designed to cover anything that the association’s master policy does not—namely, anything below the deductible on the association’s master policy. Most sets of CC&Rs fortunately allow the board to make these adjustments to deductible amounts without triggering the need for any membership approval or vote on the matter.

Other options may include reducing the scope of insurance coverage the association is required to purchase under the CC&Rs. For example, if the CC&Rs require full replacement cost, or an ‘All-In’ policy, consider an amendment to a ‘Bare Walls’ policy, which only covers the common areas. This type of amendment would likely require membership approval and should therefore only be considered if the board is ready to devote the time and resources needed to properly educate the membership and secure enough participation in the voting process. We typically recommend in these situations that the board conduct one (or more) townhall meetings to show the cost comparisons of (a) the special assessment(s) and/or assessment increase(s) that would be needed to maintain All-In coverage over the coming years versus (b) shifting to Bare Wall coverage for the association and each homeowner only incurring a minor increase in premium under the average HO-6 policy.

This is often successful in giving the membership a clear and powerful explanation as to why voting for the amendment is in their best interest; in our experience, this substantially increases the likelihood that the ballot measure will be successful.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq. and Ramona Acosta, PCAM.

Retain Your HOA Counsel Throughout Insurance Claim Matters

Published on: August 3, 2022 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

unnamed Homeowners Associations (“HOA”) are encouraged to report potential and actual claims to their insurance carriers. In fact, there is usually a provision within the HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) that delineate the circumstances when an HOA’s manager should report a claim. If there isn’t such a provision, HOAs should adopt standard protocols regarding reporting a claim with its insurance carrier in situations where there may be coverage while also immediately taking action to mitigate any damages internally.

In most instances after a claim is reported to the HOA’s insurance carrier, an adjuster would be assigned. If the situation may be resolved with only the insurance adjuster, the HOA’s general counsel, the Board of Directors (“Board”), and HOA’s manager involved, then great. Oftentimes though, the insurance adjuster will assign insurance defense counsel as the claim might be a bit more complicated. In most cases, insurance assigned defense counsel will take over the matter and be the point of contact between the HOA and the insurance adjuster. HOAs will usually opt to not have their general counsel remain on the case as the HOA’s insurance carrier only covers insurance defense counsel’s attorney’s fees not the HOA’s general counsel fees. While that is understandable, we would urge Boards to reconsider taking the HOA’s general counsel completely off an insurance handled matter simply to conserve costs. In the long run, such a decision might end up causing greater liability and headaches for the HOA.

To provide a bit of background, attorneys in California are required to follow what is known as the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”). As a matter of fact, these Rules are so important that they are tested on the California State Bar and attorneys are required to complete continuing education courses pertaining to ethics every few years. These Rules serve to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. Thanks to cinematic arts and social media platforms, attorneys are already viewed as “sharks,” so these Rules promote the administration of justice and confidence in the legal profession. An attorney’s failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the California State Bar’s disciplinary process. It is important for HOAs and their Boards to know and understand the foundation of a good attorney-client relationship and why an HOA’s general counsel will usually be more invested than an HOA’s insurance defense counsel.

When a Board decides to forego having their general counsel involved in an insurance matter until resolution is achieved, the HOA might be resolving the claim in such a way that is not in the best interests of the HOA. For example, if insurance defense counsel fails to keep communications lines open between insurance defense counsel and the Board as required by Rule 1.4, when it becomes time to settle, the Board does not fully understand what they are agreeing to settle. Most insurance defense counsels work in some capacity for the HOA’s insurance carrier therefore, even though they have an attorney-client relationship with the HOA and should advocate zealously on the HOA’s behalf, the reality is the HOA’s insurance carriers are their bosses. As such, there is a slight conflict of interest. If the HOA’s general counsel is not involved in mediation, settlement negotiations, or preparation of the settlement agreement, the HOA’s Board might end up agreeing to something detrimental to the HOA. At that point, damage control would necessitate a malpractice lawsuit concerning insurance defense counsel and a bad faith insurance lawsuit—neither of which any Board wants a part of.

To avoid such an outcome, HOA Boards should at least retain their general counsel on major decisions throughout the duration of the insurance claim. If the Board does not want HOA general counsel to be directly involved, then the Board should routinely update their general counsel to obtain appropriate advice and risk mitigation strategies.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Vivian X. Tran, Esq.

AB 1101 Signed! Welcome Clarity to HOA Financial Protection Requirements

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Legislation

AB 2912, passed in 2018, provided welcome protections to homeowners in HOA’s from fraudulent activities by those entrusted with managing an HOA’s finances. AB 2912’s protections included: 1) requiring Associations to secure fidelity bond insurance in an amount equal to or exceeding current reserves, plus three months of assessments; 2) requiring a monthly review of financial statements rather than quarterly; and 3) prohibiting electronic transfers of funds without board approval. However, certain provisions of AB 2912 were unclear.

To settle any confusion, AB 1101 was passed by the California Legislature in September of 2021. Effective January 1, 2022, Civil Code Sections 5380, 5502, and 5806, will be amended in order to clarify existing law by:

1) Specifying that HOA funds shall be deposited into accounts insured by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration Insurance Fund. This ensures that HOA funds are properly preserved and not invested in any high-risk investments or stocks.

2) Establishing clear limits before board approval is required for the transfer of HOA funds. While AB 2912 provided a process by which HOA’s should approve major expenses, the process for calculating those limits was somewhat confusing and was subject to change based on the amount of money on deposit in the HOA’s bank accounts. With AB 1101, the process is clear. For HOA’s with 51 or more units, transfers of $10,000.00 or more must be approved by written approval of the board. For HOA’s with 50 or fewer units, transfers of $5,000 or greater must be approved in writing by the Board.

3) Specifying that the HOA must not just maintain fidelity bond coverage, but that it must now also maintain crime insurance and employee dishonesty coverage, or their equivalent, for dishonest acts of the person or entity and their employees. This coverage would extend not just to the HOA and its directors, officers and employees, but also to managing agents and their employees.

Common sense legislation that protects the financial interests of HOA’s, which are unfortunately often targets for embezzlement, is a breath of fresh air. As always, HOA’s with questions regarding new legislation or legal requirements related to insurance or finances, should contact their HOA lawyer.

-Blog post authored by TLG Senior Attorney, Carrie Heieck.

Property Damage Claim and General Liability Coverage/Denial

Published on: March 3, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

denied-stamp When there is a potential for litigation regarding property damage, your association’s legal counsel will sit down with the Board of Directors to analyze whether the alleged property damage resulted from the association’s negligence in any form. If the association is put on notice of a potential negligence claim, it is advisable to immediately report the matter to your Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance carrier.

For example, a popular homeowner concern is a common area roof leak. Upon notice of the alleged leak, it is the association’s duty to follow-up with the homeowner and initiate an investigation within a reasonable timeframe. (Corp. Code §7231(a)). The association has a duty under its governing documents to determine if the homeowner’s allegation of a common area leak is true or not (i.e., hire a leak detection specialist). Upon analyzing the specialist’s report, if it is determined there is a leak within the common area, the association is bound by its governing documents to fix it. (Civil Code §4775.) Note that in the common area roof leak scenario, the association would repair the common area roof, but not any interior or content damage. Therefore, the homeowner may sue under the CGL policy for any interior repairs and content damage on the basis the association failed to maintain the common area roof. The association looks to the CGL policy for the insurance company’s duty to defend and coverage of the loss.

Of course, investigations are time consuming and costly as they often require the contracting of knowledgeable experts. The CGL policy may kick in if there is a clear allegation that the association was negligent in failing to repair and maintain the association’s common areas as required under the governing documents.

However, what if the insurance adjuster denies the claim because it is not covered under the CGL policy or falls under one of the policy’s exclusions? This is where your legal counsel will dispute the adjuster’s argument and advocate why the CGL policy should cover the claim.

There are key provisions within the CGL policy that your attorney will analyze. “Property damage” and “occurrence” are two of the main terms insurance adjusters will often use to either provide or deny coverage under the Commercial General Liability policy.

“Property damage” usually means:

Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use will be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it; or
Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All loss of use will be deemed to occur at the time of the “occurrence” that caused it.

“Occurrence” usually means, “An accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.”

Most CGL policies will cover a potential property damage claim if: (1) the property damage is caused by an occurrence within the covered area; (2) the property damage occurs during the policy period; (3) the association did not have notice of the property damage occurring, in whole or in part; and (4) the claim was reported as soon as possible to the insurance company. Usually, property damage will be deemed to have been known to have occurred at the earliest time when the association received notice of an occurrence or a claim. Therefore, it is extremely important to notify the association’s insurance agent, property manager and your legal counsel as soon as possible if there is a potential for a claim.

The above is but a snippet of a potential issue an HOA might face. For more on arguing bad faith claims, please see our blog post on Insurance Coverage Denied & Bad Faith Claims.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Vivian X. Tran, Esq.

New Case Highlights the Importance of Naming the Managing Agent as Additional Insured Under the HOA’s Directors and Officers Insurance Policy

Published on: January 7, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Case Law

Many homeowners associations (“HOA”) are professionally managed by a managing agent (“Manager”). The Manager is generally tasked with the obligation of carrying out the decisions of the HOA’s Board of Directors (“Board”), as well as day-to-day operations of the HOA. Because they operate as an agent of the HOA, most Managers require the HOA to indemnify them from any claims, damages and losses arising out of Manager’s performance, except to the extent that such claims, damages or losses are the result of Manager’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Because of this indemnification obligation, HOAs typically name their Manager as “additional insured” under the HOA’s commercial general liability insurance policy (“CGL Insurance”). If the HOA and Manager are sued, and there is potential coverage under the policy, the insurer will provide a defense for both the HOA and Manager (at the insurer’s expense). However, as one HOA recently learned, it is equally important to name Manager as additional insured under its Directors and Officers insurance policy (“D&O Insurance”).

In Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., an owner brought a lawsuit against Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association (“Auburn”) and its Manager alleging various improprieties with Auburn’s collection practices. (2020 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 6323, **4-5.) The owner sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an accounting. (Id. at p. *4.) Auburn’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”), denied the tender of the claim concluding that the claims were not covered under both the HOA’s CGL and D&O Insurance. (Id. at p. *7.) Auburn successfully defended against the owner’s lawsuit. (Id. at p. *8.)

Undeterred by Auburn’s success, owner filed a second lawsuit against Auburn and Manager, requesting that the trial court set aside the foreclosure sale that had taken place, as well as other forms of relief. (Id.) Auburn tendered the action to State Farm who denied the claim under Auburn’s CGL Insurance but accepted the claim as to Auburn only under its D&O Insurance; State Farm refused to provide Manager with a defense thereby requiring Auburn to defend Manager at its own expense pursuant to Manager’s full-service management agreement. (Id. at p. *9.) Again, Auburn successfully defended against the owner’s lawsuit. (Id. at p. *10.)

Shortly thereafter, Auburn and Manager filed a lawsuit against State Farm for breach of contract, claiming, among other things, that State Farm had breached the terms of Auburn’s D&O Insurance policy when it refused to provide a defense for Manager. (Id.) The trial court agreed with State Farm’s position, holding that Manager was not named as additional insured therefore relieving State Farm of its obligation to defend. (Id.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court disagreed with Auburn’s argument that the “declarations page…clearly showed [Manager] was an additional insured under [the D&O Insurance],” noting that the “declarations pages did not mention [Manager]” (id. at p. *27); in other words, Manager was not clearly listed as an additional insured under the D&O Insurance. The Court further disagreed with Auburn’s argument that its insurance agent had a contractual duty to provide Manager with D&O Insurance coverage. (Id. at pp. **27-28.)

This case is important because it highlights the need for an HOA to include its Manager as additional insured not only on the HOA’s CGL Insurance, but also its D&O Insurance. HOAs should therefore inquire with their insurance agent to confirm adequate coverage in light of the Court’s holding in Auburn.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

Insurance Coverage Denied & Bad Faith Claims

Published on: September 16, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Medical-Necessity-Criteria-1080x675-1 Community associations buy insurance to obtain coverage in the case it becomes necessary. The reality is pre-litigation costs are expensive, ranging anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. Litigation itself can be even more and this is not including any estimated fees for an appeal. No association wants to pay out of pocket for all these fees when there is a perfectly good insurance policy bought just for these types of situations. However, sometimes, an insurance company will want to cut corners to avoid paying out its policy coverage amount. If an association’s insurance carrier(s) denies coverage, your association’s legal counsel will work together with the insurance adjuster to persuade the insurance carrier to provide coverage, as a bad faith insurance claim would not be beneficial to either parties.

What is a bad faith insurance claim?

The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, including insurance policies. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 713, 720). “[T]he essence of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is that [t]he insurer must refrain from doing anything that will injure the right of the insured to receive the benefits of the [insurance] agreement, the terms and conditions of which define the duties and performance to which the insured is entitled.” (Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1514- 1515.) Therefore, breach of a specific provision of the insurance contract is not a necessary prerequisite to bringing a bad faith claim. (Carson v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 409, 429.)

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached where an insurer delays or denies payment of policy benefits unreasonably (i.e., without any reasonable basis for its position) or without proper cause. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072-1073; see Wilson, supra, 42 Cal. 4th 713, 723, —“[A]n insurer’s denial of or delay in paying benefits gives rise to tort damages only if the insured shows the denial or delay was unreasonable”; see also Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass’n v. Associated Int’l Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 346.)

“[F]or a variety of [public] policy reasons, courts have held that breach of the implied covenant (in insurance cases) will provide the basis for an action in tort.” (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654, 684, 765 P.2d 373.) Insurance companies know that people buy insurance to obtain peace of mind and security, and that they expect to be paid promptly in the event of loss. (Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 809, 819, 620 P.2d 141, 145.) Having sold insurance on this basis, insurers are not permitted to put their interest (in avoiding claims losses) ahead of the insureds’ interests in obtaining the protection for which they bargained. (Id. at p. 819.

If the association timely notifies the insurance carrier upon learning of a potential claim that may be covered by their insurance policy, insurance companies must cooperate in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the lawsuit among other things.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Vivian X. Tran, Esq.

Association Hazard Insurance Policies Benefit not only the Association but also all Condo Owners (their tenants) and Mortgagees

Published on: May 28, 2019 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

34897866_1544762584740987_r Both Commercial and Residential Condominium CC&Rs frequently contain insurance language requiring the Association to obtain hazard (fire) insurance and prohibiting Owners from obtaining such coverage. Condominium Owners on the other hand are limited to obtaining liability insurance. Similar language was found in the CC&Rs of the condominium association in Western Heritage Insurance Company v. Frances Todd, Inc. No. A152428 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2019). The insurance language for The East Shore Commercial Condominiums located in Berkeley, California included the following:

Article 13.1 requires the Association to “obtain and maintain a master or blanket policy of all risk property insurance coverage for all Improvements within the Project, insuring against loss or damage by fire or other casualty. … The policy shall name as insured the Association, the Owners and all Mortgagees of record, as their respective interests may appear.” Article 13.3 provides in part, “Any insurance maintained by the Association shall contain [a] ‘waiver of subrogation’ as to the Association, its officers, Owners and the occupants of the Units and Mortgagees. …” Article 13.4 prohibits an individual owner from obtaining fire insurance while allowing an owner to obtain individual liability insurance. Article 3.1 requires that all “occupants and tenants” comply with the CC&Rs.

This language requires the Association’s hazard insurance policy to “name as insured the Association, the Owners and all Mortgagees”, thereby, protecting not only the Association, but also all Owners and Mortgagees as insureds. Although tenants are not included as an “insured” by these CC&Rs, “occupants” are protected by these CC&Rs from subrogation.

FACTS OF CASE

Defendant, Frances Todd, Inc. was a furniture manufacturer; and a tenant leasing a condominium unit in a commercial condominium complex. The Defendant (tenant) was negligent in causing the fire which destroyed the unit and surrounding units. Western Heritage Insurance sued the tenant for indemnity to recover all amounts it paid the Association on the Association’s fire damage claim on a theory of the tenant’s underlying negligence. The court looked at both the CC&Rs and the lease between the Owner and tenant and concluded the Association’s fire insurance policy also benefited the tenant:

The CC&R’s, applicable to both the Owner and defendants (tenants) as occupants, required the Association to obtain a policy of fire insurance and to name the Owner as an insured on that policy, and precluded any party other than the Association from maintaining fire insurance on the premises. The fire insurance purchased by the Association was intended to be the only fire policy on the property and was for the benefit of the property’s lessees absent language to the contrary in the lease.

The court also noted that:

“In California, courts have held a lessee is not responsible for negligently caused fire damages where the lessor and lessee intended the lessor’s fire policy to be for their mutual benefit.”

Even though the CC&Rs did not specifically state that tenants were to be named as insureds, the Court reasoned that such a conclusion was implied based upon its review of the CC&Rs and the lease between the Owner and the tenant. The court also noted that the Owner pays for insurance through his or her dues and the tenant contributes to those dues by his/her rent and there is no requirement that a specific amount of dues or rent be allocated for the fire insurance policy. Therefore, the tenant like an Owner was a beneficiary under the Association’s insurance policy and could not be sued for negligently causing the fire by the Association’s insurance.

Hazard (Fire) Insurance Policies are “no fault” Policies. They cover Hazards (fires) whether or not they are caused by the Insured’s own negligence.

The fact that the furniture manufacturer tenant was negligent was not an issue in this case. The only issue was whether they were a beneficiary under the Association’s insurance policy. The court noted that if negligent fires were not covered by fire insurance policies, then insurance companies would be incentivized to litigate the insured’s possible negligence in all fires; and litigation would be never ending:

A fire insurance policy which does not cover fires caused or contributed to by the insured would be an oddity indeed. Otherwise, few insured fire claims would be paid without controversy and most would require litigation. For that reason we do not deem that a policy ‘for the benefit’ of a lessee excludes coverage for fires caused by his negligence.

How does this case affect the Association’s right to recover Common Area Damages from Owners under Civil Code §6858(b)?

Civil Code §6858 (b) allows the Association to recover damages to Common Areas:

An association has standing to institute, defend, settle, or intervene in litigation, arbitration, mediation, or administrative proceedings in its own name as the real party in interest and without joining with it, the members, in matters pertaining to the following:

(a) Enforcement of the governing documents.

(b) Damage to the common area.

(c) Damage to a separate interest that the association is obligated to maintain or repair.

(d) Damage to a separate interest that arises out of, or is integrally related to, damage to the common area or a separate interest that the association is obligated to maintain or repair.

In cases of fires covered by an Association’s hazard insurance policy the Association is responsible to pay the deductible required under the policy. This case does not affect the Association’s right under Civil Code §6858(b) to sue the tenant or the Owner for that matter for the amounts (including the deductible) not covered by the fire insurance policy.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Bruce R. Kermott, Esq.

AB 2912: New Protections Against the Misuse of HOA Funds

Published on: November 27, 2018 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Library Article!

electronic-funds-transfer-help-e1542145539349 Assembly Bill 2912 (“AB 2912”) was recently enacted by the California Legislature. Its changes to the law, which take effect January 1, 2019, are intended “to protect owners in a [HOA] from fraudulent activity by those entrusted with the management of the [HOA’s] finances.” To that end, AB 2912 (a) significantly increases the financial review requirements of HOA boards of directors, (b) limits the ability for automatic transfer of HOA funds without board approval, and (c) imposes a requirement for the HOA to purchase and maintain a fidelity bond.

In the wake of AB 2912’s passage, questions and concerns have surfaced as to how HOAs and management companies may need to adjust their current operational procedures to comply with the new state of the law. Our HOA attorneys have authored a new article to address some of those questions and to clarify some of AB 2912’s key components.

The article, entitled “AB 2912: New Protections Against the Misuse of HOA Funds,” is available for download from our firm’s library. You can access the article by clicking here.

Is a Homeowners Association Required to Install and Maintain AEDs?

Published on: July 17, 2018 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

The issue of whether or not a homeowners association is required to install and maintain an automated external defibrillator (“AED”) on-site is a question that has not been directly addressed by California courts. As a result, many community members and Board of Directors (“Board”) seek legal guidance and clarity as to the same. In particular, associations that maintain common area facilities and accommodations such as a gym, basketball court, tennis court, or swimming pool, feel the need to maintain an AED due to the rising number of lawsuits that are being filed against businesses and corporate entities for failing to maintain same.

The main cause of action named in these lawsuits is one of negligence, wherein plaintiffs claim the landowner has breached its duty of care by failing to maintain an AED on-site; chief among these cases is Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312. In this case, Verdugo, age 49, suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while shopping at Target and died despite the paramedics’ attempts to revive her. There was no AED in the store. Verdugo’s family members filed the suit against Target claiming that it breached its duty of care to its invitees (i.e., business guests) by failing to maintain an AED in the store. However, the Court ruled in favor of Target holding that it did not owe a statutory or common law duty to maintain an AED.

The Court found that Target did not owe a statutory duty of care under California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) §1797.196 because it only imposes obligations on an entity or person that maintains an AED; the statute does not require them to maintain same. More importantly, the Court reasoned that while Target owed a reasonable duty of care to provide assistance to a patron in medical need, maintaining an AED exceeded the scope of duty. The Court looked at two factors: (1) the degree of foreseeability that the danger will arise on the business’s premises and (2) the relative burden that providing a particular precautionary measure will place upon the business.

In its evaluation of the two factors, the Court found that there was no reason for Target to foresee that shopping within its premises would increase the risk or cause an invitee to go into cardiac arrest. Secondly, the burden of regularly maintaining an AED (in accordance with all federal and state regulations) and trained personnel on-site was not minor or minimal, outweighing the need for same.

Although Verdugo dealt with a for-profit corporation, it appears to support the position that homeowners associations are not required to maintain an AED. Like Target, a homeowners association does not have any reason to foresee an increased risk of cardiac arrest within its premises from the mere fact an individual—whether it is a homeowner, guest, or tenant—is occupying a unit within the community or visiting.

Water Damage Claims in Your Condo Association

Published on: June 26, 2018 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-water-damage-claims *New Library Article!

Many condominium associations face problems due to a misunderstanding of how their association’s policies of insurance operate and should be utilized—especially in connection with property damage emanating from broken pipes or plumbing fixtures. Those problems include, among others: (a) denying owners the benefit of the insurance coverage to which they are entitled; (b) having the association assume broader repair responsibilities than what it legally must or should; and (c) failing to adopt policies to allow for losses to be resolved in consistent, equitable and cost-efficient manners.

Our HOA attorneys have authored a new article to address these problems by dispelling some of the confusion at their core. In doing so, we provide recommendations as to how condominium associations should approach water damage claims with the assistance of their HOA legal and insurance professionals. Those recommendations include what we believe every condominium association should adopt as part of their operating rules: a “Water Loss Policy.”

The article, entitled “Water Damage Claims in Your Condo Association,” is available for download from our firm’s library. You can access the article by clicking here.