Browse the full Resources Index
Condominium claims introduce a layer of complexity not present in single family home losses, largely because a condo building typically involves two distinct sets of coverage: a master policy carried by the association covering the building structure as originally built, and an individual unit owner policy, commonly an HO-6 form, that may cover improvements the owner has made beyond the building’s original finishes over the years they have lived there. Many Minnesota condominium buildings were converted from apartment construction decades ago, which means the line between what the master policy treats as building property and what the unit owner treats as their own improvement can depend heavily on how the original declaration was drafted at conversion.
The original building components, sometimes described as the standard or bare walls finish depending on the declaration and bylaws of the association, generally include items like drywall, standard flooring, and basic fixtures as they existed when the unit was first built or as the master policy defines them. Improvements and betterments refer to upgrades a unit owner has added over time, such as upgraded hardwood flooring in place of builder grade carpet, custom cabinetry, updated countertops, or higher end light fixtures installed after the original purchase of the unit. Kitchen and bathroom remodels are especially common sources of dispute over this line, since a full kitchen renovation can represent a substantial portion of a unit’s overall value and its finishes may differ significantly from what the building originally provided.
When damage occurs, whether from a wind driven rain intrusion around a balcony door or a burst pipe in a shared wall, distinguishing between original building finishes and unit owner improvements becomes part of documenting the loss accurately. This distinction affects which policy is expected to respond to which portion of the damage, though the specific coverage determination for any given item is a matter for the policy language and the parties involved, not something an appraiser or umpire decides on their own initiative.
An appraiser’s role in this situation is to help establish the amount of loss for whatever scope of damage is at issue, which requires careful documentation of what existed before the loss. Photographs from before the damage occurred, receipts or contractor invoices for prior upgrades, and a clear room by room inventory noting which finishes were original and which were added later all support an accurate valuation regardless of how the coverage question is ultimately resolved between the association, the unit owner, and their respective insurers.
Condominium declarations and bylaws vary considerably from one association to another, and some associations maintain their own detailed records of what unit owner improvements have been reported to them over the years, which can be a useful reference during a claim. Where such records exist, they often help resolve factual questions about a unit’s history more efficiently than relying on memory or incomplete paperwork years after an improvement was made, particularly in buildings that have changed ownership or management companies more than once.
This article is general education about how the appraisal process commonly works. It is not legal advice, and specific procedures can vary by state and policy.
Russ Lis is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire based in Minnesota, serving clients nationwide. Contact Appraisal Resolution.