Who is responsible for insurance on a condo — the unit owner or the HOA?

Both carry insurance. The HOA's master policy typically covers the building structure, roof, exterior walls, and common elements such as hallways, lobbies, and shared plumbing. The unit owner's HO-6 policy covers interior improvements, personal property, and fixtures within the unit's boundaries. Florida Statute 718 (the Condominium Act) and the association's declaration of condominium define where the HOA's responsibility ends and the unit owner's begins. When damage crosses that boundary — such as a roof leak causing interior unit damage — both policies may apply.

What happens when condo water damage affects both the unit and common elements?

When damage originates in a common element (like the roof or shared plumbing) and extends into a unit, it creates a dual-policy situation. The HOA's master policy should cover repairs to the common elements and any damage within its scope of coverage. The unit owner's HO-6 policy covers the interior improvements and personal property. A public adjuster experienced with condo claims can determine the correct boundary, file separate claims against each policy, and coordinate documentation so that nothing falls through the gap between the two carriers.

Can a condo unit owner file a claim against the HOA's master insurance policy?

The unit owner typically cannot file directly against the HOA's master policy — the HOA or its property manager initiates that claim. However, unit owners have the right under Florida Statute 718 to request that the HOA file a claim on the master policy when common element damage affects their unit. A public adjuster can work with both the unit owner and the HOA board to ensure that the master policy claim is filed, properly documented, and includes all damage within its coverage scope.

How long does an insurance carrier have to respond to a condo claim in Florida?

Under Florida law, an insurance carrier has 60 days from the date a claim is filed to investigate and provide a coverage determination — whether the claim is approved, partially approved, or denied. This applies to both the unit owner's HO-6 carrier and the HOA's master policy carrier. If a carrier fails to meet this deadline, the policyholder may file a complaint with the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS). Prompt claim filing and thorough documentation help keep the process within these timelines.

Condo/HOA Dual Policy Claim: $8,900 to $167,200

Claim Results

Initial Offer

$8,900

→

Total Recovered

$167,200

→

Increase

1,779%

Location

St. Petersburg, FL

Damage Type

Water Intrusion

Timeline

71 Days

Resolution

Dual-Policy Settlement

The Situation

A 4th floor condo unit in St. Petersburg, FL experienced significant water intrusion originating from a roof leak above the unit. The water traveled through the building envelope, damaging ceiling drywall, crown molding, interior paint surfaces, flooring, and cabinetry inside the unit. The leak also caused damage to common elements in the hallway and mechanical chase adjacent to the unit, affecting shared infrastructure that fell under the HOA’s responsibility.

The unit owner filed a claim with their HO-6 carrier. The carrier dispatched an adjuster who acknowledged some interior damage but issued a settlement offer of just $8,900 — covering only cosmetic surface repairs in two rooms while ignoring moisture-related damage to subfloor materials, insulation in the ceiling cavity, and affected cabinetry. The adjuster’s scope made no mention of the common element damage, the roof as the origin point, or the HOA’s master policy.

What the Carrier Tried

The unit owner’s carrier employed a boundary-shifting strategy designed to minimize their exposure. They acknowledged only the most visible interior surface damage while classifying the structural and concealed damage — ceiling cavity insulation, subfloor deterioration, water-damaged electrical components — as falling under the HOA’s master policy responsibility. In effect, they tried to push as much of the loss as possible onto the association’s carrier.

When the HOA filed a claim on its master policy, that carrier took the opposite position. The HOA’s carrier argued that the damage was limited to common elements only — specifically the roof membrane and a small section of hallway drywall — and that all interior unit damage was exclusively the unit owner’s responsibility. Between the two carriers, a substantial portion of the actual damage fell into a coverage gap where neither was willing to pay.

Our Approach

The unit owner engaged Care Claims after receiving the $8,900 offer. Our team recognized immediately that this was a dual-policy claim requiring coordination across two separate carriers, two separate policy structures, and two separate scopes of loss — all governed by the association’s declaration of condominium and Florida Statute 718.

We began with an independent boundary survey. Using the association’s declaration of condominium and the building’s as-built plans, we established the precise legal boundary between unit owner responsibility and common element responsibility. This boundary determination is the foundation of any condo claim — without it, both carriers will continue shifting costs back and forth indefinitely.

We then conducted a comprehensive loss inspection, documenting every damaged element and categorizing each item according to which policy it fell under. Moisture mapping with thermal imaging confirmed the full extent of concealed water migration through the ceiling cavity and wall assemblies. We created two separate, fully documented loss scopes: one for the unit owner’s HO-6 policy covering interior improvements within the unit boundary, and one for the HOA’s master policy covering common element and structural damage.

Our FL Statute 718 analysis established the legal framework for both carriers. The statute defines maintenance and insurance responsibilities for common elements, limited common elements, and unit interiors. We presented each carrier with the specific statutory provisions that applied to their scope of coverage, eliminating their ability to deflect responsibility to the other policy.

We coordinated directly with the HOA board and their property manager to ensure the master policy claim was filed with complete documentation. Simultaneously, we submitted a comprehensive supplemental claim to the unit owner’s carrier with the expanded interior damage scope. Both carriers received our boundary determination, the statutory analysis, and the policy-specific loss documentation.

The Result

The dual-carrier coordination strategy produced a total recovery of $167,200. The unit owner’s HO-6 carrier settled at $41,200 — covering all interior improvements, flooring, cabinetry, and concealed damage within the unit boundary. The HOA’s master policy carrier settled at $126,000 — covering roof repairs, common element restoration, structural remediation, and shared infrastructure damage. Combined, the recovery represented a 1,779% increase over the original $8,900 offer.

Timeline

Day 1 — Engagement & Boundary Survey

Unit owner signed Letter of Representation. Care Claims reviewed the declaration of condominium and building plans to establish the legal boundary between unit and common element responsibility.

Days 2-8 — Comprehensive Loss Inspection

Full property inspection with thermal imaging and moisture mapping. All damage documented and categorized by policy responsibility. Two separate loss scopes prepared.

Days 10-15 — FL Statute 718 Analysis & Dual Filing

Statutory analysis completed. Supplemental claim filed with unit owner’s carrier. HOA master policy claim coordinated with board and property manager.

Days 20-50 — Dual-Carrier Negotiation

Parallel negotiations with both carriers. Boundary determination and statutory references presented to counter each carrier’s cost-shifting attempts.

Day 71 — Dual Settlement Reached

Both carriers agreed to settle. Unit policy: $41,200. HOA master policy: $126,000. Total recovered: $167,200.

Results vary. Past performance does not guarantee future outcomes. Case details anonymized for client privacy. All claims outcomes depend on policy terms, damage scope, and carrier cooperation. Public adjuster fees are typically 10-20% of settlement, per FL Statute 626.854.