Question: Can a Strata force you to have insurance on your unit?

[Mr.C]

I moved out of my condo a couple months ago, shut off the water, shut off the electricity at the breaker panel, locked it up.

I then get a strata letter wanting to fine me for not having proof of insurance.

Is that legal? Can they actually force me to buy insurance? I mean, I did have insurance for the 4 years I was living there, but I cancelled it when I moved, and nobody ever asked me for it.

If it's legal/illegal, can someone point me in the law that states it? Or even a decent lawyer specializing in strata disputes?

Thanks RS.

[Soundy]

Yes, you are required to have insurance for your condo. No, I can't point you to the exact strata law, but this only makes sense: what happens if there's a water leak in the unit and adjacent units are damaged? What if there's a fire? You need to have a minimum level of insurance to cover those kinds of damages to the rest of the building, even if you don't give a crap about your own unit.

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Yes, you are required to have insurance for your condo. No, I can't point you to the exact strata law, but this only makes sense: what happens if there's a water leak in the unit and adjacent units are damaged? What if there's a fire? You need to have a minimum level of insurance to cover those kinds of damages to the rest of the building, even if you don't give a crap about your own unit.

I'm not quite interested in the making sense or not part. I need to find out if its legally required or not, and I can't find any information regarding this.

[Presto]

There's nothing in the Strata Property Act that explicitly states that an owner must have insurance. In section 161, it just states that the owner may choose their own insurance.

[Soundy]

You may want to check the specific strata bylaws though - if your specific strata has included a clause requiring an empty property to carry insurance, then yes, that gives them the right to demand it, and yes, you agreed to it when you purchased there (whether you actually read all the bylaws or not).

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You may want to check the specific strata bylaws though - if your specific strata has included a clause requiring an empty property to carry insurance, then yes, that gives them the right to demand it, and yes, you agreed to it when you purchased there (whether you actually read all the bylaws or not).

At the time of purchase there was no such bylaw, I checked. One was enacted in the last six months, I believe. The Bylaw states:

"All residents are required to obtain their own insurance coverage for their personal contents, liability and vehicles. The strata corporation is not liable for any damage or loss to contents or vehicles for any reason whatsoever."

The way this reads to me is "get your own insurance because we won't cover anything", which is fair. Wanting to fine me for not having proof of insurance in these two months, especially since I was never asked for it before, sounds like bullshit.

[Soundy]

Well then, you just answered your own question, didn't you?

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

At the time of purchase there was no such bylaw, I checked. One was enacted in the last six months, I believe. The Bylaw states:

"All residents are required to obtain their own insurance coverage for their personal contents, liability and vehicles. The strata corporation is not liable for any damage or loss to contents or vehicles for any reason whatsoever."

The way this reads to me is "get your own insurance because we won't cover anything", which is fair. Wanting to fine me for not having proof of insurance in these two months, especially since I was never asked for it before, sounds like bullshit.

So to clarify...

You are aware that the strata bylaws require you to have insurance on your unit, but are pissed off because they are forcing you to prove it? They are well within their rights to require you to prove it. This is particularly prudent seeing as you have openly admitted that despite knowing you need it, you don't have it and are trying to avoid getting it...

Mark

[finbar]

Tell them you are self insured.

Personally I would carry insurance, regardless of strat rules, it's relatively cheap.
What you are really buying is a team of insurance lawyers to
back you up in the event of a claim against you.
Not bad for a few hundred bucks a year.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

... The Bylaw states:

"All residents are REQUIRED to obtain their own insurance coverage for their personal contents, liability and vehicles. The strata corporation is not liable for any damage or loss to contents or vehicles for any reason whatsoever."

1. Focus on this sentence.
2. Focus on the bolded/CAPSed word.


I don't know how you got another meaning from this but to me it looks pretty cut and dry.

[TheKingdom2000]

In my condo, insurance is not required. If your place floods you have to pay for all damages. ie. you will get sued by the owners/strata for any damage done. But, insurance is not required.

Clearly, you are required to purchase insurance for your condo. But, you said you did? So what's the problem? Just show them you had insurance and you're good to go? You said you only stopped paying for insurance when you left. I don't really see the problem here..

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by mx703

Clearly, you are required to purchase insurance for your condo. But, you said you did? So what's the problem? Just show them you had insurance and you're good to go? You said you only stopped paying for insurance when you left. I don't really see the problem here..

He said he CANCELLED the insurance when he moved out... regardless of whether or not he lives there though, as an OWNER he is required to carry insurance on his unit.

[dkvby]

An insurance agent told me that u cant buy insurance if no one living in the suite ......

[hirevtuner]

for me, you can buy ur own insurance in case of fire, theft, and any disasters within ur unit, but for the common areas like lobby is covered by the strata insurance but if the unit above leaking water to ur unit, they have to have insurance themselves or you can personally sue them for damages

if unclear, you have to ask a property lawyer, but to best of my knowledge, if it states on the strata rules u need insurance, then you need insurance

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by dkvby

An insurance agent told me that u cant buy insurance if no one living in the suite ......

Not true - there are a variety of coverages that can be applied to unoccupied properties.

Originally Posted by hirevtuner

for me, you can buy ur own insurance in case of fire, theft, and any disasters within ur unit, but for the common areas like lobby is covered by the strata insurance but if the unit above leaking water to ur unit, they have to have insurance themselves or you can personally sue them for damages

And conversely, if something in your unit causes damages to someone else's unit or to the common areas, YOU could be sued if you're not insured. If someone goes into your unit and is injured, you could also be sued.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

At the time of purchase there was no such bylaw, I checked. One was enacted in the last six months, I believe. The Bylaw states:

"All residents are required to obtain their own insurance coverage for their personal contents, liability and vehicles. The strata corporation is not liable for any damage or loss to contents or vehicles for any reason whatsoever."

The way this reads to me is "get your own insurance because we won't cover anything", which is fair. Wanting to fine me for not having proof of insurance in these two months, especially since I was never asked for it before, sounds like bullshit.

The way I read it, is... the insurance is there for "personal contents, liability and vehicles." If you are not there, with no contents and no vehicles, there should be no reason to hold insurance on it.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by falcon

The way I read it, is... the insurance is there for "personal contents, liability and vehicles." If you are not there, with no contents and no vehicles, there should be no reason to hold insurance on it.

There's still liability: liability for damage that originates in his unit (flooding, fire, etc.), and liability for anyone who enters his suite (guy breaks in, trips over a carpet, breaks a leg...)

[Noir]

Originally Posted by dkvby

An insurance agent told me that u cant buy insurance if no one living in the suite ......

Yes you can. But it can get pricey, coverage sucks, and there's requirements that you need someone to check in on it regularly, etc. These will also vary from insurance company to company.


Although I think this is only under the condition that one's suite is only "temporarily" vacant. meaning:

1) Either owner is going away but will be coming back shortly.
2) Owner will no longer be residing in the suite but will be renting it out (or lending it to a family member)
3) Owner will no longer be residing there and the property is on sale.



edit: I remember another one.

If you're not going to be living there as your primary residence, (and have no plans to rent it out) but will be using it occasionally as your secondary (or vacationary) residence, all you just have to do is amend your property coverage from primary to secondary residence.

Of course, the rates for secondary homes and coverages are adjusted appropriately

[RRxtar]

Man so many people seem to only read parts of things they want to hear.

Originally Posted by falcon

The way I read it, is... the insurance is there for "personal contents, liability and vehicles." If you are not there, with no contents and no vehicles, there should be no reason to hold insurance on it.

you read: contents, liability, vehicles
you recognized: contents, vehicles.
you neglected: liability
the purpose of insuring an unoccupied unit: liability

Originally Posted by hirevtuner

if the unit above leaking water to ur unit, they have to have insurance themselves or you can personally sue them for damages

did you happen to flip the scenario around in your thoughts? what happens when your unit causes a leak onto the unit below you and you get sued.

[StylinRed]

pm'd

[fetched]

My neighbour recently had a leak that affected my unit. My manager and insurance agency told me I have to have proof of negligence for me to demand reimbursement for the damages. I ended up paying my deductible for damages that wasn't incurred by me because they alerted the strata in a "timely manner", therefore wasn't liable. It wasn't a pipe in between units, it's from their washroom drain. Did I get the wrong information?

[Mancini]

A strata is required to hold insurance covering all major perils. $This coverage applies to everything pertaining to the original construction, including fixtures & fittings (think of the state of the building when it was competed by the developer). This coverage is typically broader than a personal policy.$

Your personal policy provides coverage for your contents (including betterments), loss assessment coverage, liability, among other things.$

In almost all cases the strata bylaws allow the strata to hold an individual unit owner responsible for loss originating in their unit (loss assessment/chargeback), regardless of fault. Your fault (negligence) in the incident is not a factor. $However, and this is important, they can only do so for the strata insurance deductible. This can be many thousands of dollars. That's where your personal policy steps in.$

Liability; your personal policy covers you for your personal negligence. You're not personally liable for the negligent acts of others and you are not covered for it. If you are at fault for damages the strata will come after you for that same deductible. Not more. If other units are affected then those owners or their insurers can come after you for their costs (contents, betterments, staying in a hotel during repairs).$

Most property damage claims are for water damage. Often, it's due to an unexpected leak that is not your fault. The strata can charge you for the strata insurance deductible and it's usually between $5k to $25k.$
Posted via RS Mobile

[hk20000]

Revscene: real estate ownership experts unite!

Yes if it is a bylaw it was most likely moved forward with votes and it turns out majority in your building wants insurance on their units mandatory, so you have to play by the rules.

[CivicS]

Originally Posted by Mancini

A strata is required to hold insurance covering all major perils. $This coverage applies to everything pertaining to the original construction, including fixtures & fittings (think of the state of the building when it was competed by the developer). This coverage is typically broader than a personal policy.$

Your personal policy provides coverage for your contents (including betterments), loss assessment coverage, liability, among other things.$

In almost all cases the strata bylaws allow the strata to hold an individual unit owner responsible for loss originating in their unit (loss assessment/chargeback), regardless of fault. Your fault (negligence) in the incident is not a factor. $However, and this is important, they can only do so for the strata insurance deductible. This can be many thousands of dollars. That's where your personal policy steps in.$

Liability; your personal policy covers you for your personal negligence. You're not personally liable for the negligent acts of others and you are not covered for it. If you are at fault for damages the strata will come after you for that same deductible. Not more. If other units are affected then those owners or their insurers can come after you for their costs (contents, betterments, staying in a hotel during repairs).$

Most property damage claims are for water damage. Often, it's due to an unexpected leak that is not your fault. The strata can charge you for the strata insurance deductible and it's usually between $5k to $25k.$
Posted via RS Mobile

Best response in this thread!

[GLOW]

i'm thinking the fine probably almost costs the amount of basic condo insurance for a year.