The bank would not give you a mortgage on a condo if the property itself was not insured. They have no interest in your contents insurance, only the structure.
You knew that this couldn’t be the only high-rise along the South Florida coastline with this problem. In another thread, I posted that the Western U.S. has a bleak future due to climate change, and I think you can put much of Florida in that category as well. The economic hardship will probably hit long before the most extreme climatological impacts begin to make life there challenging.
Getting insurance is going to be harder and harder in zones that are impacted by climate change, whether we’re talking droughts and forest fires, or hurricanes and flooding that erases coastline.
The collapse has really caught the attention of building officials all over the state. Pigeons are coming home to roost everywhere.
From my parents neck of the woods.
Wouldn’t surprise me if renewed focus on building inspections becomes a thing everywhere. The idea that a building could collapse like this in the U.S. seemed unfathomable to ordinary folks without an engineering background. We own a unit in a mid-rise, and it makes me wonder just how structurally sound our building is. I’m afraid to find out, but the alternative is worse, obviously.
Well…I have a mortgage. The bank insists I have insurance. The bank is quite happy with my “walls-in” insurance. (My mortgage is with Chase bank…not some fly-by-night outfit).
My building does have insurance. Not sure if it will cover collapse.
I am thinking my bank feels the chance of collapse is so remote that they are not worried about it. Well, presumably the chance of a total building loss is baked into their fees and requirements but it is so remote a chance I doubt they have a line-item on a spreadsheet for this.
Here’s a description of the difference between the condominium’s master insurance policy and the individual unit owner’s insurance policies:
I am certain that when I owned a condo unit that my mortgage company required a copy of the master insurance policy. It might have been something that the title company (or whoever prepared the financials for closing) got directly from the condo association, since they needed to work directly with the condo assoication to determine any fees associated with the purchase.
There is no way in hell a bank is going to issue a mortgage on an uninsured or inadequately insured property.
I don’t claim to understand condo insurance, but based on your link and googling other sources, the term “walls-in” insurance does not appear to mean what you think it does (and does not appear to be very intuitive, either).
Fannie Mae’s requirements for condo insurance:
The servicer must verify property insurance, including wind and flood insurance if applicable, coverage at the project level as part of its review of a project and ensure each condo association is covered by an individual policy.
If the master insurance policy maintained by an HOA for a condo project does not cover either the interior of the condo unit or the improvements made by the borrower to the interior of the condo unit, the servicer must ensure the condo unit has an HO-6 policy.
If an HO-6 policy is required, the insurance policy must provide coverage, as determined by the insurer, sufficient to repair the condo unit to at least its condition prior to a loss claim event.
Acceptable types of HOA master insurance policies include:
”Single Entity,” ”All-in,” and ”Bare walls.”The policy must cover all of the general and limited common elements that are normally included in coverage, including fixtures, building service equipment, and common personal property and supplies belonging to the HOA.
Additionally, the policy must provide that
any Insurance Trust Agreement is recognized; the right of subrogation against unit owners is waived; the insurance is not prejudiced by any acts or omissions of individual unit owners not under the control of the HOA; and the policy is primary, even if a unit owner has other insurance covering the same loss.
I can’t find it now but I saw an article that said the building had $48 million in insurance, presumably on the building itself. The article also said they’re appointing someone to decide how to distribute that and other money that will be available.
This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It was an improperly constructed parking garage deck. If anything it will get insurance companies to ask for more frequent structural reviews.
I wasn’t saying that there’s definitive proof that climate change was a significant (or even barely significant) factor in the collapse of this structure - I don’t think we know the full story yet, and we may not for some time.
I only mentioned it because salt water can corrode the steel that is used in construction, whether it’s the frames or the rebar in concrete. True, the mere fact that the developers chose to build near the beach would make that an issue, irrespective of climate change. However, there is the stubborn fact that climate change is causing oceans to rise and that this puts added pressure on these buildings. A rational person has to consider whether beachfront property is worth it in the day and age of clear and obvious climate change. This isn’t just a Florida problem, but with as much coastline as Florida has, that state is particularly susceptible.
Since there’s no indication at all that it involves “climate change” it’s not relevant to the topic.
It can’t affect rebar unless the concrete has been compromised. Which in this case is due to improper drainage. This is nothing new.
They’re going to drop the remaining structure on July 4th ahead of the hurricane.
Yes, the condo association presumably has a policy that covers the structure. But every homeowner has a policy that covers the stuff within their unit, and all that stuff was destroyed. Those won’t be cheap claims for the insurer. I didn’t mean to imply that those policies cover the overall structure. But a ton of insurance policies have been triggered and will be paying out.
I think the forewarning that the building was failing was misinterpreted by the tenants as vibrations caused by nearby construction.
The policy I carried on the apartment I own covered water and fire damage to walls and floors as well as damage to my personal possessions.
Now that I’m subletting that apartment, I have a cheaper policy that doesn’t include personal possession. So the building maintains a policy that covers the structure, I maintain a policy that covers damage to the inside of the apartment and my tenant maintains a policy on his personal possessions.
YMMV, this is how it works for me, not sure if this is universally applicable - although I’m under the impression it’s fairly standard.
If you look at the bottom right of the pool, the deck has sunk at least ten feet. I’m sure that’s what she was referring to.
Omniscient just got done explaining it occurred at 2 am and also no construction vibrations would be close to the events bringing down the building. Those vibrations would travel through the concrete garage structure and building pillars. any outside vibrations have to travel through soil substrate and would be virtually non-existent to the people in the building.
Since there are indications that ‘climate change’ may cause similar collapses in the future, it is relevant to the topic.
I totally missed that. I was remembering the pool I swum in as a child, which was 12’ below the high-dive board, and the deep deep deep end didn’t register.