Given the fact that there are so many uninsured drivers in the South Florida area, we believe that each person that carries automobile insurance should also carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (also known as UM coverage).   This coverage is so important as it may be the only way for a hurt individual to recover any type of damages for injuries stemming from a car accident.   For example, in most “hit and run” accidents, the adverse driver is never found.  For that reason, an injured party will most likely not be able to recover damages from the “hit and run” driver.  Thus, UM coverage would allow an injured person to recover damages for their injuries from their own insurance carrier.   Likewise, if a person is injured by a driver that carries minimal insurance ($10,000.00), and that person’s damages are $20,000.00, for example, having UM coverage would provide that person with an ability to be fully compensated for their injuries.   While the costs and the varying types of UM coverage should be discussed with an insurance agent, we believe that all drivers should fully consider UM coverage given the significant number of uninsured and underinsured drivers in the South Florida area. 
 
This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.

With all the new housing construction that occurred over the last few years preceding the current housing crisis, many homeowners found mold throughout their homes due to the presence of multiple water intrusion sources.   Mold in the home affects all types of homeowners without any type of discrimination in the value of the house.  Our firm has seen water intrusion sources stemming from roofing problems, door and window problems, air conditioning problems  and sloping problems on decks and on the ground that caused water to flow back toward the house.  Of course, this list is certainly not exhaustive.  However, if there is a viable claim against a home builder/developer, a homeowner must be cognizant of the fact that there is a statutory process that must be undertaken (with limited exceptions) before filing suit against the builder.  There is also some question as to whether this same pre-suit process applies to a builder’s subcontractors (with whom the homeowner has not directly contracted with) which may affect a homeowner’s ability to file suit against that entity.  On the other hand, this pre-suit process often leads to resolution of claims without the need to file a lawsuit.  The homeowner must be aware that this process can be very difficult to navigate (and also leads to other issues such as whether the homeowner may be required by the builder to release all claims that they may have against that builder).  As a result, a homeowner must carefully consider whether their potential claims should be limited to the builder only or should be made against both the builder and its subcontractors.  Likewise, the homeowner should carefully consider the potential legal pitfalls that could occur in this pre-suit process.
 
This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.

Water intrusion suffered by a condominium unit owner often leads to the development of mold.  Putting aside the fact that mold can negatively impact one’s health, unit owners face difficult challenges trying to repair their units because of the interplay between a “common element” and the unit owner’s responsibilities.  While common elements generally involve the unfinished perimeters of a unit, for example, condominium associations do not regularly take steps after a water intrusion event to remove drywall or to take other steps to dry out these perimeter areas (common elements or limited common elements as defined by the Declaration of Condominium).  When the Association fails to dry out the water intrusion affecting the common elements, the Association creates a positive environment for mold to develop.  As a result, if there is a water leak from a neighboring unit or from the roof of the condominium, etc., a unit owner recognizing the existence of water intrusion should immediately notify the Association.  If the Association does nothing, depending on the circumstances, then a unit owner can seek damages or injunctive relief to force the Association to maintain the common elements which it is required to do by statute.  Obviously, a unit owner wants to ensure that their unit is free from mold and if the Association does not maintain or repair the common elements following a water intrusion event, then the unit owner has the statutory right to take legal action.
 
Of course, each case must be evaluated on its own merits as each case has its own factual circumstances. This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.

As an attorney handling condominium contract deposit disputes, I have concerns that the current economic crisis is going to further impair the ability of those seeking to recover their construction deposits from doing so.   Generally speaking, many developers required twenty (20%) percent down, half of which was held in escrow while the other half was used for construction purposes.   Many of those individual condominium units that were purchased never closed, leaving the developer with a loss of funds to pay the debts on their mortgages and/or their construction financing.    This could lead to banks foreclosing on the property or could result in the court appointing a receiver to run the developer’s business.

Because of the economic crisis, developers will have trouble obtaining funds on credit to stave off foreclosure or receivership.  In either scenario, a unit purchaser will have a tremendous difficulty recovering their deposit in excess of what is being held in escrow.   For that reason, it makes sense that a purchaser seeking to recover their deposit back should initiate the process sooner rather than later as, it would seem, the longer one waits, the less likely it will be to recover a deposit in an amount greater than what has been held in escrow.

Of course, however, each case is different and should be evaluated on its individual merits. This article does not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and is not for re-publication without express permission of the author.