Should Connecticut Condo Associations Require Extra Liability Insurance From Contractors?

Dan, who owns a condo in central Connecticut, wants to know if his association is taking the right approach by requiring contractors to carry additional liability insurance when they work in the complex.

“It has been a practice of our management company to require contractors to hold additional liability insurance for the condo association and our management company when performing work on the premises.  I can certainly understand that you can never have enough liability insurance, but usually this additional cost translates into an increase in the amount bid,” Dan wrote CtCondoNews.

“I’m told that this is standard practice, but I’d love to hear a different take on the matter if you have any knowledge on it?  Is this something that SHOULD be required?  Or would contractors that hold their own liability insurance be enough dependent on the job performed?”


Share

13 Responses to Should Connecticut Condo Associations Require Extra Liability Insurance From Contractors?

  1. Sandi Martinik says:

    I do know that any project on campus is to have bids, contracts, insurance, licenses and permits.

    We at Glen Oaks Condos in Newington are dealing with a catastrophe where there was a $50,000 project done regarding our indoor pool and now the walls are caving in.

    The board did put in a claim with the contractor’s insurance company. I don’t know if we did with our insurance company. In the meantime, the board is waiting on an Engineer’s Report.

    Anyway, it appears the damages are up to $70,000.

    Now the big kicker is…no board vote to do this project. We have asked for the vote and no one has come up with it. And, we called the town hall and there is no permit on file. The president and treasurer just signed the contract and had the work done. No board member stopped the project knowing there was no vote!

    The contractor is out of business too. This project was done in 2008 or 2009? However, the board, it appears, will not take any accountability to the matter.

    The case is not over; it has just begun.

  2. WRU says:

    Reason #! why we need a CT condo owner ombudsman law with teeth. We shouldn’t be at the mercy of a small number of misguided, egocentric Board members like those at Winnipauk.

    • Unfortunately most CCOC members agree that an ombudsman would create more problems than solve. I agree and I have looked into it.
      George

      • John kelvis says:

        Please explain why you are against ombudsman. It’s been my understanding that most of the condo lobby groups in Connecticut are for it.

        • There are only two condo lobby groups, the CAI and the CCOC. The CAI is adamantly opposed to an ombudsman. The attorney general is against it. The majority of CCOC members who have expressed an opinion are opposed to it. Many unit owners refused to join CCOC while the group favored an ombudsman. Nevada has an ombudsman, it doesn’t work there. Too many complaints, not enough staff, no one wants to pay for it.
          So I know of NO ONE – other than a handful of individuals who think ombudsman are the answer. The present CCOC executive committee is opposed to it.

  3. John kelvis says:

    You would absolutely be subject to a mechanics lien if the sub didn’t pay workers, but only if those workers are not employees of the sub, if the sub isn’t paid or if supplies used on the buildings are not paid for.

    Lien waivers should be obtained from EVERYONE who has provided goods or services on the property, but, if as you have indicated, the subs have fled the property, those waivers will be difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Connecticut law allows for a lien to be placed for goods and services with a value of more than 10 dollars and within 90 days of goods and services being supplies.

    It is very important for your community to be diligent and ask questions; there was a death at a complex in Shelton from an improperly covered worker falling from a roof. There are lawsuits filed against the complex and contractors. It’s also had stop work orders due to misclassification of workers.

    If you see something, say something is my best advice.

  4. WRU says:

    A few years ago, there was a death of a worker at Winnipauk. Turns out that the contractor hired by the buffoons that make life miserable here, was not qualified to do excavating work as part of a drainage project.

    The other problem that we have here is not only the Board, but a majority of people here are apathetic. How do you fight apathy?

    If we don’t have an ombudsman than CT ought to copy NY. There, only a few miles down the road, condo owners have protections against boards and management companies. In CT, if I was a renter, I’d have more rights than I do as a condo owner. We definitely need to change that, and my experience here at WV has led me to rethink the alleged positives of owning a condo.

    • Joan Pagliuco says:

      Here in Shelton, where the man fell off the roof and died, there is also apathy. I’ve tried desperately to gather interest from the community and have gotten some, but most are so intimidated by bullies on this hill, that they just don’t bother. There are real questions about who is considered the employer or subcontractor, and here’s where the legal nightmare begins. The board has no clue what they are doing; they just rubber stamp whatever is in front of them. How do we change that? Legislation seems almost ineffective, because in order to get relief you need to either hire an attorney for a ton of money or make a career out of studying the law and case. I can’t wait til the market gets better and I can get out of here.

  5. John kelvis says:

    Again, why are you opposed? You site Nevada but offer no references. Could you provide me with links?

    Btw, the ccoc BEGGED me two years ago to testify in Hartford in favor of the bill.

    • The CCOC that begged you to testify is no longer in control of the organization. Infact all the former committee members had resigned. Part of the problem was that so many of our potential members opposed the ombudsman. There is no cite on Nevada, but I did the research myself by called people there. You either believe me or you don’t. We will simply have to agree to disagree. With warm regards, George.

  6. wvconcerned says:

    Why was a posting removed from this thread?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>