Roberts v. Nine Island Avenue Condominium Ass'n

126 So. 3d 286, 2011 WL 4374452, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14943
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 21, 2011
DocketNo. 3D09-371
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 So. 3d 286 (Roberts v. Nine Island Avenue Condominium Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roberts v. Nine Island Avenue Condominium Ass'n, 126 So. 3d 286, 2011 WL 4374452, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14943 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

This appeal arises out of a dispute between Nine Island Avenue Condominium Association (Association) and unit owners of boat slips (slip owners) at Nine Island over who is responsible for the cost of reconstruction of the marina and boat slips, destroyed by Hurricane Irene in 1999. After the hurricane, the Association assessed each slip owner a proportionate share of the $701,050 reconstruction. Some of the appellant slip owners paid the [288]*288special assessment and others refused. In 2002, eighteen slip owners, about half the total number, filed a declaratory action asking the trial court to exonerate them from the obligation of the special assessment on the ground the Association failed to place and keep the marina and docks insured. The Association countered with foreclosure counterclaims against those slip owners who had not paid the special assessment. The dispute spawned other disagreements between the parties, all of which revolve around which party is responsible for the costs and expenses related to the marina. After an evidentiary final hearing, the trial court concluded the slip owners solely were responsible for the costs pertaining to the marina, and we affirm.1 However intuitively obvious our decision might appear, a sojourn through the not-so-intuitively-obvious interstices of the Florida Condominium Act and the Declaration of Condominium, to which these parties are contractually bound, is necessaiy to explain our decision.

There is no serious dispute over the material facts of this case. In 1982, two years after Nine Island Condominium was constructed, the developer built a marina, including thirty-six docks, behind the condominium building and sold the right to use the dock spaces to thirty-six of the unit owners. The dock slips are limited common elements. The Declaration of Condominium allows the “owner” of a dock space to sell or transfer his right of use of his assigned space, but only to another unit owner.2 Hurricane force winds from Hurricane Irene destroyed the marina in mid-October of 1999. The property manager at the time testified that a preliminary study of the marina, completed by a local structural engineering firm just before Hurricane Irene, concluded the marina had outlasted its useful life. On June 2, 2000, the property manager advised the slip owners of this finding.

The slip owners’ central contention on this appeal is that the Association left them high and dry in 1999 by not insuring the marina property prior to the storm. The slip owners argue that both the Florida Condominium Act and the Declaration of Condominium required the Association to do so.

Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium delineates the Association’s responsibilities relating to insurance. It reads in relevant part:

XI. Insurance

Insurance shall be carried and kept in force at all times in accordance with the following provisions:
A. Duty and Authority to Obtain. The Association shall obtain and keep in force at all times the insurance coverage which it is required hereby [289]*289to carry as well as all coverage which it is required by the Condominium Act to carry....
B. Required Coverage. The Association shall purchase and carry insurance coverage as follows:
1. Casualty Insurance. Casualty insurance covering the Building and other improvements of the Condominium, including, without limitation, Units (including the bathroom and kitchen fixtures initially installed into Units by the Developer) and Common Elements, in an amount equal to the maximum insurance replacement value thereof (subject to reasonable deductible clauses), exclusive of excavation and foundation costs, as determined annually by the Board of Directors of the Association; such insurance to afford protection against:
(a) Loss or damage by fire or other hazards covered by the standard extended coverage or other perils endorsement; and
(b) Such other risks of a similar or dissimilar nature as are or shall be customarily covered with respect to buildings and other improvements similar in construction, location and use, to the Building and other improvements of the Condominium, including, without limitation, vandalism, malicious mischief, windstorm, water damage and war risk insurance, if available; ... 3

The slip owners argue the language of this Article, requiring the Association to “purchase and carry ... [c]asualty insurance covering the Building and other improvements of the Condominium, including, without limitation, Units (including the bathroom and kitchen fixtures initially installed into Units by the Developer) and Common Elements ... exclusive of excavation and foundation,” is “clear and unambiguous with regard to what coverage the Association is required to ‘purchase and carry,’ ” namely that the Association must secure windstorm coverage on the marina and dock spaces as well as the Building and Common Elements.4 We agree with the slip owners that the insurance article is clear and unambiguous. However, we find, as did the trial court, that under the de novo standard of review we are authorized to exercise when interpreting an unambiguous contract on an appeal from a final judgment, see First Equitable Realty III, Ltd. v. Grandview Palace Condo. Ass’n, 46 So.3d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the insurance article in the Declaration does not require the Association to purchase and maintain insurance coverage on the docks. We reach this conclusion for several reasons.

First, the plain language of the insurance provision requires the Association to purchase insurance only on the Building and other improvements of the Condominium, including the Units and Common Elements. The word “Building” is a defined word in the Declaration, meaning “the [twenty-five]-story high rise building constituting the principal improvement locat[290]*290ed on the land.” The reference in this provision to “Units” and “Common Elements” is clearly a reference to the land-based elements of the “Condominium Property” — itself a more inclusive, defined term found in the definitional provisions of the Declaration.5 Article III of the Declaration, entitled “Description of the Condominium Property,” includes separate paragraphs delimiting and distinguishing the “Common Elements” of the Condominium Property from the “Limited Common Elements.” The boat slips are expressly stated to be “Limited Common Elements” under Article III, section E.6 of the Declaration. If “Limited Common Elements” were to be included in the “Required Coverage” section of Article XI of the Declaration, it would have been a simple matter for the drafters to have included the phrase “Limited Common Elements” after the term “Common Elements.” The drafters did not do so. Furthermore, that the sole focus (and purpose) of.the “Required Coverage” section of Article XI of the Declaration is to require the Association to purchase and carry casualty insurance on the land-based elements of the Condominium Property — the Building, the Units, and the Common Elements — is fully and finally demonstrated by the fact the drafters carefully excluded one land-based element, “excavation and foundation costs,” from the Association’s insurance procurement obligations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. River Manor Condominium Ass'n
125 So. 3d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 So. 3d 286, 2011 WL 4374452, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-nine-island-avenue-condominium-assn-fladistctapp-2011.