Insurance

Homeowners Insurance

The House Rules require all share­hold­ers to acquire Home Owners InsuranceThe House Rules state:

All Lessees must obtain com­pre­hen­sive Home Owners Insurance Liability Coverage for any and all apart­ments or shares they own. A copy of the cer­tifi­cate of Home own­ers Insurance Liability must be sub­mit­ted to the Board of the Lessor or des­ig­nat­ed Managing agent.”

Why you need to be insured and what you need to know

The fol­low­ing arti­cle by Robert E. Mackoul, founder and President of Mackoul and Associates, pro­vides some basic infor­ma­tion on Home Owners Insurance. Please con­tact your insur­ance agent for advice and com­plete infor­ma­tion on the avail­able insur­ance.1

Many coop­er­a­tive and con­do­mini­um dwellers tend to think that they don’t need home­own­ers insur­ance. This is gen­er­al­ly due to two basic mis­con­cep­tions: the first, that they do not need home­own­ers insur­ance because the build­ing already has cov­er­age; the sec­ond, that since banks and mort­gage com­pa­nies don’t require home­own­ers insur­ance in a coop­er­a­tive or con­do­mini­um, such cov­er­age is not a necessity.

These beliefs are not only wrong, but they can also be dan­ger­ous. Building insur­ance rarely pro­vides cov­er­age with­in units them­selves. And while banks may not stip­u­late home­own­ers insur­ance as a req­ui­site when mak­ing a loan, that’s cold com­fort if a fire or oth­er cat­a­stro­phe ren­ders your apart­ment tem­porar­i­ly uninhabitable.

The issue is not whether you should have home­own­ers insur­ance, but how much cov­er­age you should secure. For co-op share­hold­ers and con­do unit own­ers, the ide­al pol­i­cy should cov­er the basics:

    1. Improvements and Alterations,
    2. Contents and Personal Effects,
    3. Loss of Use cov­er­age for extra expens­es that arise from being tem­porar­i­ly unable to occu­py the unit fol­low­ing a claim,
    4. Personal Liability to pro­tect against law­suits from oth­er par­ties or insur­ance com­pa­nies, and
    5. Assessment Coverage.

Improvements and alterations

In a coop­er­a­tive or con­do­mini­um, improve­ments and alter­ations that are with­in the unit are the unit own­er’s or share­hold­er’s respon­si­bil­i­ty. These improvements/alterations are not cov­ered under the building’s insur­ance policy.

If there is a claim, the building’s insur­ance com­pa­ny is respon­si­ble for the build­ing itself and the infra­struc­ture, the pipes and elec­tri­cal wiring inside the walls. When it comes to the indi­vid­ual unit, the insur­ance com­pa­ny is only required to put the apart­ment “back to spec”; that is, exact­ly how it was when it was built. Thus, all the updates to a spe­cif­ic unit that have occurred since the build­ing was first built are the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the cur­rent own­er, and not the build­ing. This includes new bath­rooms and kitchens, floor­ing and car­pet­ing, and mold­ing put in by the cur­rent own­er. In addi­tion, the cur­rent share­hold­er is respon­si­ble for all the improve­ments and alter­ations done by pre­vi­ous owners.

If, for instance, the floor­ing in a unit had been in place since the building’s incep­tion, that would be cov­ered under the building’s insur­ance. However, espe­cial­ly with old­er build­ings, the prob­a­bil­i­ty of hav­ing a unit with all its orig­i­nal fea­tures intact is rather low. The build­ing insur­ance com­pa­ny will not pay for these alter­ations and repairs. This is where homeowner’s cov­er­age specif­i­cal­ly for improve­ments and alter­ations comes in; if prop­er­ly planned, it will cov­er all the alter­ations and improve­ments in a unit, regard­less of who put them in.

Personal property

Shareholders or unit own­ers are respon­si­ble for insur­ing all of their apartment’s con­tents and per­son­al prop­er­ty. This includes every­thing from fur­nish­ings to kitchen­ware to cloth­ing – any­thing that can be moved around, picked up, and tak­en. What can’t be moved, such as bath­room fix­tures and kitchen cab­i­nets, qual­i­fy as improve­ments and alterations.

Personal prop­er­ty cov­er­age should be ade­quate to meet the cost of replac­ing items today, as opposed to the cost when they were orig­i­nal­ly pur­chased. If some­thing that is con­sid­ered per­son­al prop­er­ty is destroyed and there is no replace­ment cost cov­er­age, the insur­ance com­pa­ny will depre­ci­ate the loss and great­ly reduce the com­pen­sa­tion for the dam­aged item. For exam­ple, a tele­vi­sion pur­chased for $500 five years ago, with­out replace­ment costs, would be worth $250 today (assum­ing that the use­ful life of a tele­vi­sion is 10 years). But with replace­ment cov­er­age, the insur­ance would cov­er the full cost of a new tele­vi­sion. As a rule of thumb when decid­ing on the lev­el of cov­er­age for your new insur­ance pol­i­cy, you should typ­i­cal­ly esti­mate how much all your per­son­al prop­er­ty and apart­ment con­tents are worth and then dou­bling that value.

Loss of use

In the event of seri­ous dam­age to your unit, you will need mon­ey to live else­where. This is pro­vid­ed for under a part of the home­own­er’s pol­i­cy called “loss of use”. In insur­ance poli­cies for coop­er­a­tives, lim­it­ed loss of use only cov­ers 40 per­cent of the total per­son­al prop­er­ty cov­er­age amount. If your prop­er­ty is insured for $100,000, the max­i­mum loss of use com­pen­sa­tion that you could receive would be $40,000.

If repairs to the unit go on for an extend­ed peri­od of time, which they often do, this may not be enough to cov­er liv­ing expens­es – espe­cial­ly the high cost of liv­ing in New York. This is why it is best to have an unlim­it­ed loss of use pol­i­cy. This fea­ture comes stan­dard with the plans offered by Chubb and Fireman’s Fund, and most oth­er com­pa­nies will allow the home­own­er to buy up their unlim­it­ed coverage.

Unlimited loss of use cov­er­age may be the most impor­tant fea­ture of your pol­i­cy. Consider the sto­ry of a co-op build­ing in Manhattan: In the late 1990s, the pent­house res­i­dents decid­ed they did not like the way the roof drains looked, so they had them cov­ered with screens. In August 1999, when the city had 6.5 inch­es of rain in one day, the screens pre­vent­ed the water from drain­ing prop­er­ly. Water rose up over the para­pet walls and into the build­ing, drench­ing the under­ly­ing units from the ninth floor down to the sixth. The inte­ri­ors were so soaked that no work could be done until every­thing was dried out, which took some time. Restoration con­trac­tors then report­ed that all the elec­tric sys­tems in the build­ing had been destroyed, as was the beau­ti­ful plas­ter work­man­ship of this pre-war struc­ture. The apart­ments had to be gut­ted and rebuilt.

The sit­u­a­tion only got worse: it took a long time to get the claim set­tled and work under way, because the board of direc­tors right­ly insist­ed that plas­ter, rather than sheetrock, be used to restore the build­ing. The board was cor­rect in expect­ing insur­ance to pay for the plas­ter, as this was dic­tat­ed in the orig­i­nal build­ing plans. But it took eight months to restore the build­ing, dis­plac­ing those liv­ing in the affect­ed units.

For some, there was good news: the share­hold­ers on the eighth and ninth floors had unlim­it­ed loss of use cov­er­age. Their insur­ance pro­vid­ed hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars to house them in Manhattan hotels. It also paid for them to eat out and for all the extra expens­es that result from not liv­ing at home. After six months, the insur­er decid­ed to reduce the ongo­ing expens­es and found these res­i­dents fur­nished two-bed­room apart­ments. But a hard les­son was learned by the res­i­dents on the sixth and sev­enth floors: their lim­it­ed loss of use cov­er­age ran out after about a month.

Liability coverage

Most home­own­ers insur­ance claims per­tain to res­i­dent-relat­ed inci­dents. For instance, if some­one slips and falls in your unit, you may be sub­ject to a lia­bil­i­ty law­suit. But lia­bil­i­ty does­n’t stop there. If your toi­let over­flows and dam­ages the down­stairs neighbor’s ori­en­tal rug, or if your cat scratch­es some­one in the eye – all these are poten­tial lia­bil­i­ty issues.

The answer is personal/family lia­bil­i­ty cov­er­age. Most stan­dard home­own­ers insur­ance poli­cies include $100,000 of lia­bil­i­ty cov­er­age, but unit own­ers should not have less than $500,000 in lia­bil­i­ty cov­er­age because, “you nev­er know whose Picasso you’re going to ruin.”

The risks of not being insured

When share­hold­ers or unit own­ers do not have home­own­ers insur­ance, it is not only their prob­lem but it could cre­ate sig­nif­i­cant prob­lems for the build­ing, as well. If an apart­ment is ren­dered unin­hab­it­able for an extend­ed peri­od of time and the own­er has no cov­er­age to pay the expens­es of tem­po­rary liv­ing accom­mo­da­tions, the per­son­al cost could dri­ve the own­er into arrears and poten­tial­ly into default on the unit. The same could hap­pen if an inci­dent in an unin­sured share­hold­er’s unit affects anoth­er unit in the build­ing: the result­ing law­suit could force the share­hold­er into bankruptcy.

This is why many coop­er­a­tives and con­do­mini­ums have made home­own­ers insur­ance manda­to­ry for every share­hold­er and unit own­er. If your board con­sid­ers estab­lish­ing such a pol­i­cy, it should spec­i­fy the min­i­mum amount of each form of cov­er­age that the unit own­ers must take. The amount depends on the build­ing; for exam­ple, $25,000 is a good start­ing point for per­son­al prop­er­ty cov­er­age in a mid­dle-class build­ing, but a more upscale build­ing may be expect­ed to have con­sid­er­ably high­er min­i­mums. Minimum cov­er­age for improve­ments and alter­ations and for lia­bil­i­ty should also be estab­lished. You should eval­u­ate based on the val­ue of the most expen­sive unit in your build­ing, and work back­ward from that. An annu­al mon­i­tor­ing process should also be estab­lished to ensure that every­one is covered.


  1. Read the orig­i­nal arti­cle here