There may be some truth there, but more than half board did quit at one point. A bigger problem I believe is expecting people to do what no one else wants done. These are friends and neighbors saying no. How many people, unless you absolutely knew it was an emminent life and death situation, would override the majority and order what needed to be done be done. There needs to be a system where someone outside the owners says do this now. Even then there would lawsuits, etc., and whether the politicians would back that person is a big question.

The amount is immaterial since it is dependent upon the building. The larger and more expensive the replacement cost of the building, the more maintenance will cost. The usual requirement is that financial reserves be systematically collected in advance for the anticipated infrastructure maintenance, repair, and replacement costs over a 20-30 year plan--as prepared by an engineer. An unexpected expenditure would have to be paid for via a special assessment (in addition to regular reserve assessments) to cover whatever the cost might be. A lot of condo associations over the past decade have failed to fulfil requirements in law, with many declaring bankruptcy as a result--which means the owners may loose their investment. To meet this problem, states are beginning to strengthen their HOA/COA management and operation laws further.

I was recently contemplating purchase of a beachside condo in Florida. I changed my mind.
Initially, my concern was rising water levels combined with the more serious storms resulting from climate change. I had never considered the types of issues that haunted this building and led to its’ collapse.

Law School students are taught that you must have three things present to successfully sue under Tort Theories (Civil Law for this kind of issue, Personal Injury, etc.):
1. A duty
2. (that is) Breached
3. (consequent) Damages/Injury/loss
We have all of those present in the case of a building collapse, I think. Who or what entity had a duty? Likely the Condo Owners Association. If they kept trying to get the owners to pay up, did they breach their duty to ensure the building was safe? Probably not. Surely there are horrific damages to both life and property. So, you have 2 out of 3 requirements met, duty and damages. However, a major question remains regarding whether there was an actual breach of that duty. Case seems weak, already. Seems like Inspectors did their duty, but you can argue they missed how imminent the collapse was. So, maybe, but unlikely that it is their fault. Apparently, they advised regarding continual deterioration of building. Liability looks weak here.

All good law school professors advise that their is an unwritten, but very real 4th prong to this test in evaluating whether there is a strong, weak, or any case, at all. That is:
4. “Deep Pockets” / Money
If you clearly had the 3 mentioned hereinabove, is there an entity that had a duty, breached it, and that that had directly led to the damages or injuries, does that entity have any money to pay as compensation for damages/injury and pain and suffering? Good question. The Condo Assoc. apparently had not enough money to fix the much needed repairs. The owners who might have assessments against them to pay a court-ordered judgement are mostly now dead. Would an insurance company be responsible? Maybe. But, Insurance companies are not in the business of paying claims. They will surely argue that the Owners, and everyone else they can think of, is responsible for not repairing KNOWN structural defects. They only are responsible to pay up for damages from HIDDEN defects. This is a strong argument. W/o knowing exactly what the policy states, I cannot predict with certainty what their coverage will be, if any at all. We shall see, but don’t hold your breath. This will be lengthy litigation and expensive to hire good lawyers and experts by plaintiffs. Defense entities will have no problem hiring attorneys and experts. Even if costly, engineers, experts, etc. involved in this disaster most likely have insurance that will be obligated to pay for their defense costs. Professional Liability (malpractice) Policies they are usually called. Things are looking pretty bleak here for plaintiffs, so far.

Maybe Florida has liability. Maybe they should have inspected and condemned the building long ago. Maybe those that were hired by Condo Assoc. should have reported their findings to the State of Florida. Maybe they did. Maybe they had no legal obligation, in Florida, to do so. Maybe they met all their legal obligations. Idon’t think we will have such answers for years.

All I have mentioned is nothing compared to the issues raised and argued in the Courts. I don’t know much, but between experts, lawyers, court costs, this is a big deal. Will plaintiff attorneys be able to fill the bill for the years of delays and procedures and motions filed by defense teams or will they give up or not really enter the fray. Will a big-time firm do the case for the publicity it might gain them? These and many more questions remain to be answered. Depositions, Discovery, Requests for Documents all are efforts just to get enough information to determine whether it is worth pursuing or to find out if there are any deep pockets, anywhere. This process alone could be extremely lengthy.

What will this case do to insurance and increased inspection costs and condo fees nationally? How will this affect condo owner fees and sales prices?
Plenty of questions. Currently, few answers.