ADVERTISEMENT

Part of a Miami condo building collapsed overnight...

What I am curious about is the tenants in the other half of the building. What is their course of action?

Bottom line: That rest of that building is coming down. It is no longer safe to be there as it has been structurally compromised to the point that it can not be fixed.

While I am sure that everybody has been evacuated, are they going to be able to get their stuff out? Will they take small groups of people in to get their stuff out or do you write it off as too dangerous to even try? If you were in their shoes would you be brave enough to walk back into that building to retrieve your vintage ABBA record collection?

There are vintage ABBA record collections? This is a thing?

I need to find a dark, cool room and lie down . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I heard the trucking company the driver worked for claimed he wasn't on company business at the time of the accident. Regardless, it should have been dealt with long ago.
In my youth, I was in a wreck at the same spot as Landon Turner. A truck crossed the center line and hit us. Killed my mother, injured my dad so much he never worked again. The driver had no insurance on the truck on his own, his employer only covered him once he picked up the load which he was on the way to.

So believe me, I get how payment can tie up and how one may not get very much at all.
 
In my youth, I was in a wreck at the same spot as Landon Turner. A truck crossed the center line and hit us. Killed my mother, injured my dad so much he never worked again. The driver had no insurance on the truck on his own, his employer only covered him once he picked up the load which he was on the way to.

So believe me, I get how payment can tie up and how one may not get very much at all.
Absolutely awful. I'm very sorry to hear and learn that, marv. i trust your comportment in life mirrors that of your online personality and your mother would be very proud of the gentleman that you are today.

i have personally handled more than 25 wrongful death cases (easily) where the bad actor carried either the state minimum $25,000 or had no insurance at all. Devastated families and there is very little that can be done. trucks today must carry a minimum of $750,000. it helps
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Two components.

1) value/percent of wealth. I don't want the Fed's reimbursing Wal Mart because someone ran out with a Snickers Bar, not Bill Gates reimbursed because he dropped a Rolex in the sea. These people have lost most everything, their home, all their possessions, their cars. They quite literally may have nothing left.

2) fault. If I build my home in a flood plain and don't get insurance, I am not in a position to ask for help. I was stupid. These people live in a building deemed habitable and probably carry insurance. To me it was like a mom and pop destroyed in rioting, some level of government should step in and help. Now if the business owners were out daring the rioters to burn the business, that would be different.

It is the cost of living in a civilized society. Like healthcare, it should not come down to who can write the best GoFundMe story.
I don’t understand either component. Are you suggesting any uninsured loss of a home be covered by the government provided the individual meets a means test? If so how do you differentiate these condo owners from John Doe whose home is uninhabitable dhe to construction defects?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
I don’t understand either component. Are you suggesting any uninsured loss of a home be covered by the government provided the individual meets a means test? If so how do you differentiate these condo owners from John Doe whose home is uninhabitable dhe to construction defects?
You seem to know a lot about insurance. Sadly, not my area. Can I back you up for a moment? Shouldn't there be multiple levels of insurance here? I.e., not just the homeowners', but also some sort of insurance from the property management company? Wouldn't that be the relevant policy?
 
In my youth, I was in a wreck at the same spot as Landon Turner. A truck crossed the center line and hit us. Killed my mother, injured my dad so much he never worked again. The driver had no insurance on the truck on his own, his employer only covered him once he picked up the load which he was on the way to.

So believe me, I get how payment can tie up and how one may not get very much at all.
Wow. That’s terrible. i can’t imagine all the fall out for your family.
 
I don’t understand either component. Are you suggesting any uninsured loss of a home be covered by the government provided the individual meets a means test? If so how do you differentiate these condo owners from John Doe whose home is uninhabitable dhe to construction defects?
I think they declared this a federal emergency which largely deals with what I want. Let me ask you, how would you differentiate between the person who loses their home in an earthquake vs one with construction defects.

I do not know the answers, I just like the idea that people living by the rules should not spend months living out of a cardboard box through no mistake of their own.
 
You seem to know a lot about insurance. Sadly, not my area. Can I back you up for a moment? Shouldn't there be multiple levels of insurance here? I.e., not just the homeowners', but also some sort of insurance from the property management company? Wouldn't that be the relevant policy?
Property management e and o doesn’t insure condos. It insures the property managers for their f ups. So you have to sue the property manager. In this case sue the builder, the property manager, the maintenance company, any contractors, all of em. But that’s suits not insurance.
 
Last edited:
Property management e and o doesn’t insure condos. It insures the property managers for their f ups. So you have to sue the property manager. In this case sue the builder, the property manager, the maintenance company, all of em. But that’s suits not insurance
So there is no direct insurance on the stability of the building itself? That seems like a major oversight in the condo ownership system.

(Obviously, hindsight being what it is.)
 
You seem to know a lot about insurance. Sadly, not my area. Can I back you up for a moment? Shouldn't there be multiple levels of insurance here? I.e., not just the homeowners', but also some sort of insurance from the property management company? Wouldn't that be the relevant policy?
Possibly. It all depends on the association structure. I used to live in a patio home community where the association insured the structures. But they don’t all operate the same way.

My comments are not about whether the owners had insurance, but wether the insurance would cover the loss. I know that in most cases the loss needs to precipitated by an external factor. Take my snow load defect I mentioned above. insurance covered the loss on one building because snow damaged the roof. The insurance ended up paying for demolition and rebuild with a little nudging from yours truly. We had a second building with the same defect, but no damage. We demolished that building and rebuilt it. The court agreed with the insurance company and denied coverage. Fortunately we were within in the statute of limitations and sued for construction defects and recovered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Possibly. It all depends on the association structure. I used to live in a patio home community where the association insured the structures. But they don’t all operate the same way.

My comments are not about whether the owners had insurance, but wether the insurance would cover the loss. I know that in most cases the loss needs to precipitated by an external factor. Take my snow load defect I mentioned above. insurance covered the loss on one building because snow damaged the roof. The insurance ended up paying for demolition and rebuild with a little nudging from yours truly. We had a second building with the same defect, but no damage. We demolished that building and rebuilt it. The court agreed with the insurance company and denied coverage. Fortunately we were within in the statute of limitations and sued for construction defects and recovered.
That makes sense in most situations. But someone, eventually, has to be responsible for those intrinsic faults. We live in a society where we've done a pretty good job (not good enough, by some standards, but still) of replacing most direct liability with insurance. This works for everyone, because the culpable parties have someone else to point to, and the victims know the entity pointed to has, you know, money. I would just be shocked to find that something like this doesn't have that fallback.
 
So there is no direct insurance on the stability of the building itself? That seems like a major oversight in the condo ownership system.

(Obviously, hindsight being what it is.)
Homeowners insurance typically does not cover construction defects. You have to sue the contractor. Under fla law prop damage arising from a construction defect constitutes an occurrence under certain conditions.
 
I think they declared this a federal emergency which largely deals with what I want. Let me ask you, how would you differentiate between the person who loses their home in an earthquake vs one with construction defects.

I do not know the answers, I just like the idea that people living by the rules should not spend months living out of a cardboard box through no mistake of their own.
Emergency declarations brings a lot of benefits concerning the emergency expenses. The longer term recovery is usually handled with low interest loans. As far I know, FEMA does not operate as a substitute for private insurance. It does reimburse for public expenses such as roads, bridges, water ,sewer etc.
 
Homeowners insurance typically does not cover construction defects. You have to sue the contractor. Under fla law prop damage arising from a construction defect constitutes an occurrence under certain conditions.
I totally get that homeowners doesn't cover it. I just feel like something should fill that gap. COH suggested that homeowners associations might in some cases, but that seems to not be enough for me.

Let me put it this way: I'd hate to think that the only entity legally on the hook for this is a construction company that ceased to exist twenty years ago. So long as the building exists, the liability needs to find a home, too.
 
Emergency declarations brings a lot of benefits concerning the emergency expenses. The longer term recovery is usually handled with low interest loans. As far I know, FEMA does not operate as a substitute for private insurance. It does reimburse for public expenses such as roads, bridges, water ,sewer etc.
The low interest loans are the point.
 
That makes sense in most situations. But someone, eventually, has to be responsible for those intrinsic faults. We live in a society where we've done a pretty good job (not good enough, by some standards, but still) of replacing most direct liability with insurance. This works for everyone, because the culpable parties have someone else to point to, and the victims know the entity pointed to has, you know, money. I would just be shocked to find that something like this doesn't have that fallback.
Well the fall back is construction defect litigation. Colorado has statute of limitations for known defects and a statute of repose for latent ones. Without that, contractors and professional liability insurance would be prohibitively expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I totally get that homeowners doesn't cover it. I just feel like something should fill that gap. COH suggested that homeowners associations might in some cases, but that seems to not be enough for me.

Let me put it this way: I'd hate to think that the only entity legally on the hook for this is a construction company that ceased to exist twenty years ago. So long as the building exists, the liability needs to find a home, too.
Scary right. But again you can sue the property management company, the contractors, builder, whoever was supposed to perform maintenance. I don’t think they are going to find first party insurance
 
Well the fall back is construction defect litigation. Colorado has statute of limitations for known defects and a statute of repose for latent ones. Without that, contractors and professional liability insurance would be prohibitively expensive.

exactly. In fla it used to be covered as long as the occurrence was unexpected and unintended
 
Scary right. But again you can sue the property management company, the contractors, builder, whoever was supposed to perform maintenance. I don’t think they are going to find first party insurance
All that makes sense. It just seems wrong that someone can build something like that, and then, eventually, while it is still in use, primary liability just dissolves. Doesn't this sort of thing simply guarantee that governments will be on the hook to recompense people?
 
Well the fall back is construction defect litigation. Colorado has statute of limitations for known defects and a statute of repose for latent ones. Without that, contractors and professional liability insurance would be prohibitively expensive.
It's crazy the things we come up with because responsibility would be "prohibitively expensive."
 
All that makes sense. It just seems wrong that someone can build something like that, and then, eventually, while it is still in use, primary liability just dissolves. Doesn't this sort of thing simply guarantee that governments will be on the hook to recompense people?
Shitty. And as you said the gov doesn’t cover losses to the value of your home. You sue the contractor and pray you can find them, pray they are in business, pray they have CGL, on and on
 
I totally get that homeowners doesn't cover it. I just feel like something should fill that gap. COH suggested that homeowners associations might in some cases, but that seems to not be enough for me.

Let me put it this way: I'd hate to think that the only entity legally on the hook for this is a construction company that ceased to exist twenty years ago. So long as the building exists, the liability needs to find a home, too.
its all a function of price. In most construction projects I’ve been involved with, the owner can specify enhanced defect coverage, but then that extra cost will be added to the price of the project. Most people want their money to go into the building and not an insurance policy.
 
its all a function of price. In most construction projects I’ve been involved with, the owner can specify enhanced defect coverage, but then that extra cost will be added to the price of the project. Most people want their money to go into the building and not an insurance policy.
The value makes sense. The end result seems perverse.

I mean, in theory. In practice, maybe these people will get compensated, anyway. No harm, no foul (beyond the 150+ dead, of course). Just seems...icky. I know that's not a legal term of art, but still, that's how it feels.
 
The value makes sense. The end result seems perverse.

I mean, in theory. In practice, maybe these people will get compensated, anyway. No harm, no foul (beyond the 150+ dead, of course). Just seems...icky. I know that's not a legal term of art, but still, that's how it feels.
And to further complicate things . . .

Coverage for construction defects is different from coverage from personal injury from a defect. If a light fixture falls and kills someone, insurance might cover fixing the light, but not the personal injury. Once the contractor turns the building over to the owner, personal injury claims are usually the owners responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
The value makes sense. The end result seems perverse.

I mean, in theory. In practice, maybe these people will get compensated, anyway. No harm, no foul (beyond the 150+ dead, of course). Just seems...icky. I know that's not a legal term of art, but still, that's how it feels.
It gets better. In my case, the three entities whom we had slam dunk cases against had a total of about $10 million coverage. Our claim was in the 20’s. Most people assume a defect wouldn’t be so bad that the whole building would need to be demolished and redone. It’s a real scramble to get the parties and coverages lined up to cover the total claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I think they declared this a federal emergency which largely deals with what I want. Let me ask you, how would you differentiate between the person who loses their home in an earthquake vs one with construction defects.

I do not know the answers, I just like the idea that people living by the rules should not spend months living out of a cardboard box through no mistake of their own.
Sorry to hear of the accident you mentioned.

I guess I get and dont get when the Govt steps in in a ''emergency'' to cover people who arent covered. I get the part of when it is a larger are of devastation to help the area but I also look at it from an individual standpoint of why because you lost everything in a group vs I lost everything singularly how it is different? I havent suffered a loss just using the I part. Insurance has went up so much and I play the odds are still in my favor. 160 year old solid foot thick brick house and able to do some damage fix myself. had a tornado the next road over a few years ago and watched one from my basement a long time ago . It got too expensive in my view . But my question is why should the govt bail out a group of people over an individual when they are still bailing out individuals just a group of them?
 
Sue everyone! No, I really am about to pass out on my keyboard. I haven't stayed up this late in months. Enjoy the rest of your sober night.
Lmao yes!! The law practice down there is very different than in the Midwest. Plaintiff firms are huge. Some have more than 500 lawyers all doing plaintiffs work. This will be an absolutely feeding frenzy
 
Lmao yes!! The law practice down there is very different than in the Midwest. Plaintiff firms are huge. Some have more than 500 lawyers all doing plaintiffs work. This will be an absolutely feeding frenzy
Lol. With all that tort law going on you’d think Floridians would be better drivers.
 
Lol. With all that tort law going on you’d think Floridians would be better drivers.
Lmao. The car crash shits different down there with PIP. unless you have a “permanent injury” I.e. real meds over 10k no soft tissue shit you can’t sue. You just file a pip claim against your own insurance.

One of my old teammates texted me this am. He jogged down to the condo this morning and said there are lawyers everywhere. Yucky.

That Morgan and Morgan firm has about 700 lawyers. All plaintiff side. When I was at iu everyone wanted to work for the big Chicago defense firms. Opposite in fla. they go to defense firms after the well known plaintiff firms reject them.
 
Last edited:
Lmao. The car crash shits different down there with PIP. unless you have a “permanent injury” I.e. real meds over 10k no soft tissue shit you can’t sue. You just file a pip claim against your own insurance.

One of my old teammates texted me this am. He jogged down to the condo this morning and said there are lawyers everywhere. Yucky.

That Morgan and Morgan firm has about 700 lawyers. All plaintiff side. When I was at iu everyone wanted to work for the big Chicago defense firms. Opposite in fla. they go to defense firms after the well known plaintiff firms reject them.
I suspect all those lawyers are insurance defense. Anybody who even mopped the floors in that building will get sued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I suspect all those lawyers are insurance defense. Anybody who even mopped the floors in that building will get sued.
i'm sure. altho i know morgan and morgan has their dirty crew down there already. that's where crist went after he was gov and before going back to politics
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT