Washington & Oregon Construction Defect Lawyer & Attorney : Barker Martin Law Firm : HOA's, Condos : Seattle, Portland

[The following update includes newly released figures for 2007 and supplements my original entry posted 3/29/08]

I get that lawyer bashing has become a national pasttime and that plaintiff lawyers are as far down on our society’s popularity chart as politicians.   But what I do not understand is how insurance companies--the quintessential example of corporate largess--have rocketed up the chart.

Madison Avenue has done an amazingly effective job transforming large cap insurance companies into friendly, pro-consumer institutions in the eyes of many.

To emphasize my point, think of the three most popular insurance companies?

I bet Geico was one of the first names that came to mind. What image pops up? How about a docile animated gecko that speaks in a British accent? Or what about PEMCO Insurance, you know, the “We’re a lot like you, Greenlake power walker or blue tarp camper guy.” What about arguably the industry leader for this transformation change, the AFLAC duck?

But strip away the cute computer generated geckos and ducks, and the numbers reveal the truth about the insurance industry.

Fact: For the past three years and continuing into 2008, the insurance industry in America has achieved record-breaking profits. This fact is nearly astounding considering Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005.

The numbers:

• 2005: $43.0 Billion profit (Source: Insurance information institute [insurance industry trade group])  
• 2006: $63.7 Billion profit (Source: Insurance Information Institute)
• 2007: $61.9 Billion profit (Source: Insurance Informaiton Institute) 
• 2008 projected: "Analysts expect the industry’s profitability to continue in 2008. . .The ratio of losses and expenses to premiums for 2008 is projected to be 97.3, a deterioration from an estimated 93.8 in 2007. The 93.8 estimate for 2007, if accurate, would represent one of the top 12 best underwriting performances over the 88-year period beginning in 1920." (Source: Insurance Information Institute)

In light of these record-breaking profits, the insurance companies are paying out less and less in claims against builders and developers.  Wthin the past twelve months alone, several of our homeowner association construction defect clients with multi-million dollar claims are facing zero contribution from insurance, as the insurers have included stringent exclusions to policies, including no payment for losses involving “condominium” or “multi-family residential” construction.

Several of the developers and contractors allegedly did not realize they were without insurance on their construction projects.  The developers and contractors obtained CGL policies and paid CGL premiums, but when it came time for the insurance companies to indemnify the insureds for the losses, sued the policy holders in declaratory judgment actions to avoid payment.

As a result , homeowners are left holding the bag on multi-million dollar repairs with no source of recovery because builders have created single-asset LLCs and distributed all income after the project was sold, and less and less insurance is available.  This shift has occurred in the context of insurance companies obtainng record profits.

One possible answer to the current disparity in loss and recovery in Washington is through the Condominium Qualified Warranty program created by the Washington legislature in 2004. RCW 64.35, et seq. 

Under the program, there is a two-year materials and labor warranty, a five-year building envelope warranty and a ten-year structural defects warranty. The program allows an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the substantially prevailing party, yet in no event may such fees exceed the reasonable hourly value of the attorney's work. This provision should appease the lawyer-bashing critics.  Surprisingly, no insurers have funded the warranty program.  One can only speculate the lack of participation by insurers has everything to do with cutting into their bottom lines. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the past two weeks, I have been asked by three separate persons whether the Washington state legislature passed new laws this year related to homeowner and condominium association disclosure requirements tied to home sales.  The short answer is, "No."  Although there were several engrossed bills in the state house and senate involving homeowner associations that included added disclosure requirements, none of these bills went to a full vote by the legislature.

The current law in Washington is as follows:

• Association meeting minutes are not required to be included in a condominium resale certificate (The 18 separate statements or disclosures required to be included in a condominium Resale Certificate may be found at RCW 64.34.425.)
• Homeowner associations, other than condominiums, have no disclosure requirements related to sales of homes; however, individual sellers still need to complete a Seller Disclosure Statement, otherwise known as NWMLS Form 17.  

Although there is a movement to incorporate a resale certificate-type of disclosure requirement upon all homeowner associations in Washington, no such laws have been enacted to date.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I get that lawyer bashing has become a national pasttime and that plaintiff lawyers are as far down on our society’s popularity chart as politicians.   But what I do not understand is how insurance companies--the quintessential example of corporate largess--have rocketed up the chart.  Madison Avenue has done an amazingly effective job transforming large cap insurance companies into friendly, pro-consumer institutions in the eyes of many.

To emphasize my point, think of the three most popular insurance companies? I bet Geico was one of the first names that came to mind. What image pops up? How about a docile animated gecko that speaks in a British accent? Or what about PEMCO Insurance, you know, the “We’re a lot like you, Greenlake power walker or blue tarp camper guy.” What about arguably the industry leader for this transformation change, the AFLAC duck?  But strip away the cute computer generated geckos and ducks, and the numbers reveal the truth about the insurance industry.

Fact: For the past three years and continuing into 2008, the insurance industry in America has achieved record-breaking profits. This fact is nearly astounding considering Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005.

The numbers:

• 2005: $44.8 Billion profit (Source: LA Times)  
• 2006: $63.7 Billion profit (Source: Insurance Information Institute)
• 2007: Dollar figure not released. "Many insurers delivered strong earnings during the year powered in large part by healthy underwriting profits that could approach $25 billion in 2007, which would be the second largest underwriting profit on record after the $31.7 billion earned in 2006. 2007’s survey results indicate that the continuing respite in catastrophe losses in 2007 combined with strong performances in virtually all major lines of property/casualty (P/C) insurance will propel the industry to one of its best underwriting performances in the past 80 years" (Source: Insurance Information Institute)
• 2008 projected: "Analysts expect the industry’s profitability to continue in 2008. . .The ratio of losses and expenses to premiums for 2008 is projected to be 97.3, a deterioration from an estimated 93.8 in 2007. The 93.8 estimate for 2007, if accurate, would represent one of the top 12 best underwriting performances over the 88-year period beginning in 1920." (Source: Insurance Information Institute)

In light of these record-breaking profits, the insurance companies are paying out less and less in claims against builders and developers.  Wthin the past twelve months alone, several of our homeowner association construction defect clients with multi-million dollar claims are facing zero contribution from insurance, as the insurers have included stringent exclusions to policies, including no payment for losses involving “condominium” or “multi-family residential” construction. Several of the developers and contractors allegedly did not realize they were without insurance on their construction projects.  The developers and contractors obtained CGL policies and paid CGL premiums, but when it came time for the insurance companies to indemnify the insureds for the losses, sued the policy holders in declaratory judgment actions to avoid payment.  As a result , homeowners are left holding the bag on multi-million dollar repairs with no source of recovery because builders have created single-asset LLCs and distributed all income after the project was sold, and less and less insurance is available.  This shift has occurred in the context of insurance companies obtainng record profits.

One possible answer to the current disparity in loss and recovery in Washington is through the Condominium Qualified Warranty program created by the Washington legislature in 2004. RCW 64.35, et seq. Under the program, there is a two-year materials and labor warranty, a five-year building envelope warranty and a ten-year structural defects warranty. The program allows an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the substantially prevailing party, yet in no event may such fees exceed the reasonable hourly value of the attorney's work. This provision should appease the lawyer-bashing critics.  Surprisingly, no insurers have funded the warranty program.  One can only speculate the lack of participation by insurers has everything to do with cutting into their bottom lines.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Friday, March 7 was the last day to consider opposite house bills in the legislature, so any bills that have been voted on by both houses will not pass this year.  Of the numerous condo and HOA-related legislation introduced this year, only two bills passed both houses and now await signature by the governor.  The governor has five days, excluding Sundays, to take action on bills passed by the Legislature unless adjournment occurs within those five days, in which case the governor has 20 days to sign or veto (excluding Sundays.)

HB 2014, relating to protection of tenants of conversion condos, passed both houses and awaits signature.  HB 2014 was revived from last session, but amended with a substitute bill in the Senate on January 18.  The bill passed both the senate and the house in this form. 

The second bill to pass this year is SB 6215 relating to reserve accounts for condominium associations.  After passing the senate, SB 6215 was amended by the House Committee on Judiciary to include a few clarifying terms and to require disclosure of the lack of reserve study if none has been undertaken.

The bill creating a cause of action for negligent construction, SSB 6385, amended in the Senate committee to exclude condominiums, passed the senate in that form and was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on February 28.  On February 29, it was passed to Rules for a second reading, but never made it to the House floor. 

ESB 6745, which was the bill recommended by the HOA task force, was substantially amended on the floor of the senate, including amendments to make its application retroactive, to add numerous clarifying definitions, to remove the “open meetings” provision for board meetings, and to reduce the quorum requirement for association meetings.  Another amendment disallowed the use of liens against a person’s homes for failure to pay fines as opposed to assessments.  The engrossed bill passed the Senate unanimously.  It was then referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 20, but inexplicably never made it out of committee.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are very few volunteer homeowner association boards that do not communicate via electronic mail. Although most board members know not to take any board action via email, the line between casual communication and official board action easily can be blurred. As general counsel for homeowner associations, I routinely advise boards that to the highest degree possible, they should reduce email communication. However, practically speaking, I understand board members are like just about every other member of American business culture who rely upon email as a valued communication tool and timesaving mechanism. The reason email between board members should be reduced or eliminated altogether is because association board action must be conducted in an official meeting and not conducted “off the cuff” outside the presence of association members.

• Notice: Homeowner association board meetings must be properly noticed and open to all association members (with limited exceptions for emergency and executive sessions) (RCW 24.03.120; ORS 65.214).  Oregon law allows for notice of meetings to be sent electronically, while Washington requires notice via U.S. Mail for condominium associations and as noted in the bylaws (including electronic notice, if prescribed) for PUD homeowner associations.
• Meetings via Consent (Oregon only): Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action to be taken at an association board meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all the members entitled to vote on the action. The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents describing the action taken, signed by all the members entitled to vote on the action, and delivered to the association for inclusion in the minutes or filing with the corporate records. Action taken under this Oregon Nonprofit Corporations Act section (ORS 65.211) is effective when the last member signs the consent, unless the consent specifies an earlier or later effective date.
• Alternative Meeting Methodology: Except as otherwise restricted by an Association’s articles of incorporation or bylaws, board members may participate in a meeting by conference telephone or similar communications equipment so that all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time. Participation by this method constitutes presence in person at a meeting.

It isn’t email, but if HOA board members have to conduct board action and they cannot convene together, I recommend that a conference call be conducted with provisions for association members to listen in.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The sub-prime lending tsunami has rippled across the US economy, even reaching the Pacific Northwest condominium and homeowner association industry. Theoretically, an Association’s obligation to follow statutory and common law disclosure requirements should remain constant irrespective of whether the Dow Jones Industrial Average and housing market are soaring or slumping. However, practically speaking in a rising market when most everyone is making money, disclosures have been known to loosen; whereas, in a down market, disclosure statements are scoured over with heightened scrutiny. Whether the current stock market’s and housing market’s corrections have subsided or will continue indefinitely, mortgage underwriting requirements have tightened substantially for the foreseeable future. This change in the real estate marketplace requires association boards of directors to pay particularly close attention to: (a) disclosure requirements for condominium resale certificates (in Washington); (b) managing accounts receivable; (c) overseeing rental restrictions; and (d) following strict collections policies.

A.        Condominium Resale Certificates

In Washington, under RCW 64.34.425, a condominium unit seller must provide a purchaser with a Resale Certificate that includes eighteen separate written disclosures. Now that the lending industry has shifted its condominium review from a “limited” to a “full” review, association boards must ensure each required item is completed to the greatest extent possible.  Areas of particular concern in the current market environment involve pending litigation, pending or anticipated special assessments, a statement which shall be current to within 45 days of any common expenses or special assessments against any unit in the condominium that are past due over 30 days, a statement which shall be current to within 45 days of any obligation of the association which is past due over 30 days, a balance sheet and revenue/expense statement current to within 120 days, statement of any violations of the health or building codes, and history of any warranty claims made under a qualified warranty (if so provided). Although the number of condominium construction defect lawsuits has diminished over its peak earlier this decade, cases continue. In the limited time since the underwriting requirements stiffened and submission of this article, I have noted a significant rise in requests from lenders for clarification and supplemental information on resale certificates, especially disclosures related to construction defect lawsuits.

The statute is quite clear as to what must be disclosed in a condominium resale certificate. Although unit sales likely will be adversely affected to a degree not seen in recent memory due to construction defect lawsuits, significant special assessments or well underfunded reserves, condominium association boards should be aware of the heightened attention placed on these disclosures and should work closely with their professional manager and possibly legal counsel to provide accurate, thorough and comprehensive information.

B.         Accounts Receivable

If a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) or condominium homeowner association seeks a loan to fund a capital improvement, major repair project or other large capital expense, banks and other lending institutions will be paying closer attention to the financial statement of the association.  A feature component of the statement is the number of units behind in assessments and aggregate amount of accounts receivable. Prior to the recent tightening of underwriting requirements, an association could get away with several owners whose accounts were past due without much adverse impact. Now, it appears an association may need to ensure it has a nominal balance in overdue accounts receivable, or at a minimum, ensure that foreclosure or collections proceedings have commenced on those accounts that are overdue.

Although an association should manage its finances and accounts receivable proactively and work to minimize overdue accounts regardless of lending requirements or trends in the marketplace, as stated previously, this area of an association’s finances could make the difference between qualifying for an association loan and being rejected.

C.        Rental Restrictions

Many condominium and PUD homeowner associations have imposed rental caps in order to keep the number of non-owner-occupied homes below the percentage required by federal underwriting requirements. This ratio ordinarily hovers between seventy and eighty percent and varies depending upon size of loan, size of down payment and specific lending program (VA, FHA FNMA, etc.). With tighter lending requirements, to help preserve property values, obtain financing and improve overall credit scores, an association may wish to impose rental restrictions in addition to rental caps, including lease approval requirements (e.g., ensuring leases are submitted in compliance with the association’s procedural steps, if a lease renewal, confirm positive track record of the tenant and confirm that the lease adopts all of the association’s CC&R requirements) and tenant screening procedures (including having the owner/leasor conduct a consumer credit report, verification of the applicant’s employment and rental history, and conduct a public records check). A board also may wish to adopt heightened enforcement procedures that provide the association with rights to act directly against tenants who violate the CC&Rs.

D.        Collection and Foreclosure Policies

Foreclosure rates in the Puget Sound region increased forty-two percent in 2007 from the previous year, with more than 1.8 million sub-prime mortgages scheduled to reset to higher interest rates across the country this year and next. With such a large number of foreclosures pending and forecast, many homeowner associations in the region likely will experience in the near term bank foreclosures within their communities. During the upward housing market, many associations were reluctant to commence foreclosure proceedings or money judgment actions against homeowners within their communities who became past due on assessments, at least until the balance grew to a large sum. With the current tightened market, it is recommended that an association adopt strict collection and foreclosure criteria and protocol, and follow those protocols consistently.  

A homeowner association board of directors should take proactive steps and particular action to protect itself and its members from the legal risks associated with a down market. The steps described above may provide the general overview for such protections and help keep an association’s “head above water” in these turbulent times.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SHB 2014, providing additional protections to tenants of condominium conversions, having passed the House on January 18, has been tentatively set for public hearing before the Senate Consumer Protection and Housing Committee on February 5, 2008 at 1:30. Having worked out some of the kinks last year, this bill seems fast-tracked for enactment this year. See our prior article re this bill here.

SB 6215, regarding reserve studies and accounts, was passed out of the Senate committee on January 18 and has been in Rules since January 25. See the original article regarding this bill here. 

SB 6745, the HOA Act Committee bill was set for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Housing on February 1, 2008. See the original article on this bill here. 

Two new bills propose to create task forces to study condominium issues this year. SB 6875, sponsored by Senator Rodney Tom, would create a task force to study condominium governance issues and would be staffed by condominium board members, homeowners and attorneys. In contrast, SB 6724 would be staffed with developer entities and no homeowner representatives. While this bill purports to create a task force to review condominium liability in the insurance context, it is expected that unless limited, the task force may attempt to make recommendations for amendment of the condo act to reduce builder liability. 

SSB 6385, creating a cause of action for negligent construction for single family homes, was amended in committee and passed the house on February 1, 2008. It has now been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

Find info on these bills and others by checking out the legislative website bill finder. Also, a good overview of the legislative process can be found on the Washington State Legislature website here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Homeowner associations often inquire as to their authority to tow vehicles within their communities. The following outline describes general Oregon law regarding homeowners associations’ legal authority and required procedures for towing vehicles. Please note that this posting contains general information and is not legal advice for a specific towing event, which would be unique to the circumstances surrounding that event.

The information below includes amendments to Oregon state law that became effective January 1, 2008. 

First, the board needs to determine if the streets within its community are public or private roads. This information should be contained within the Association’s Declaration and Plat. 

A.  Vehicles on Public Property

• Only a law enforcement officer or public official having jurisdiction over the property on which the vehicle is located has authority to remove and take custody of a vehicle located on a public right-of-way. A vehicle constituting a traffic hazard can be removed immediately. Otherwise, law enforcement must tag the vehicle and provide at least 24 hours’ notice before impounding it.
• To have a vehicle removed from a public right-of-way, a homeowner association’s options are limited to notifying the appropriate public agency of the location of the vehicle it wants removed. The public official may then arrange for and authorize the vehicle’s removal after 24 hours. The association may not authorize removing a vehicle from public property.

B.  Vehicles on Private Property

• A key issue is whether the vehicle is unlawfully parked at a “parking facility” or on “proscribed property.” A parking facility is any property used for motor vehicle parking. Proscribed property is any part of private property where a reasonable person would conclude that parking is normally not permitted at all or where a land use regulation prohibits parking, or property that is used primarily for parking at a dwelling unit (defined as a single-family residence or duplex). Oregon law prohibits leaving a vehicle on a parking facility if there is a no parking (or restricted parking) sign posted in plain view. In contrast, it is illegal to park on proscribed property without the permission of the owner whether or not a “no parking” sign is posted.
• Property owners may have illegally parked vehicles towed after notifying the local law enforcement. From a practical standpoint, however, tow companies generally will not tow vehicles from locations without “no parking” signs.
• Alternatively, property owners may tow abandoned vehicles from private property after: (1) posting a notice on the vehicle stating that it will be towed if not removed within 72 hours; (2) contacting the local law enforcement; and (3) completing a form setting forth the vehicle description, location from which the vehicle will be towed, and a statement that the above outlined requirements have been met. As of January 1, 2008, state law provides civil immunity for individuals or entities that tow the abandoned vehicle. 
• Additionally, a property owner in lawful possession of a vehicle with an appraised value under $500 may request the local authority to dispose of the vehicle. No certificate of title is required, but the local authority must verify the property owner’s lawful possession. The local authority must also issue certain notifications to the Department of Transportation and the person requesting the disposal. The advantage of this process is that it extinguishes all prior ownership and possessory rights. The property owner, however, may be charged a disposal fee.

C.  Summary

This posting does not provide an exhaustive list of Oregon law regarding towing vehicles and each association should review the local ordinances controlling for their jurisdiction. In general, state law requires that a homeowner association contact a public official, most likely local law enforcement, to have a vehicle removed from public property. An association may remove vehicles located on private property under its control immediately if the property is posted or if it qualifies as residential property. On unposted nonresidential property the vehicle may be towed after it has been abandoned for seventy-two (72) hours.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The HOA Committee's recommendations to amend Washington's Homeowner Association Act have been compiled into Senate Bill 6745, which was introduced today.  The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Housing and is currently scheduled for public hearing on Thursday, Jan. 24. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks