I have taken your course, but I’ve hit a wall. A coworker comes into my office, closes the door and starts talking about her husband, cat, children, etc. How do I tell her I don’t want to discuss this with her?
Signed, Friend of a Chatty Cathy
Dear Friend,
It can be tricky to find the right balance between sharing and oversharing at work. I have a few thoughts regarding how to move forward in this situation.
The reason you’re hesitating to simply set a boundary with your coworker around how much she shares with you is because you know it has potential to hurt her feelings. But the promise of Crucial Conversations is that you can deliver tough news in a respectful way.
Here are a few skills that can help in the Crucial Conversation.
Start with Heart
When beginning a Crucial Conversation, get your intention right before opening your mouth. Clearly examine your reasons for not wanting to hear about your coworker’s personal life. Starting with heart ensures you understand your intent. And when you understand your intent, you can better communicate your intent. Starting with heart also pushes you to find a respectful intention beyond desires to rid yourself of irritation.
Perhaps your intent is to express that her interruptions disrupt your focus, your workload is demanding, or you simply don’t have the emotional bandwidth. Whatever the reason, consider how you can share it honestly and kindly so your coworker can better hear your request.
Master Your Emotions
The primary reason we do badly in Crucial Conversations is that by the time we open our mouths we’re irritated, angry, or disgusted with the other person’s actions. Then, no matter how much we try to fake it, our negative feelings creep into the conversation. So, before opening your mouth, open your mind. Try to separate people from the problem. Try to see your coworker as reasonable, rational, and decent—even if her actions frustrate you. It’s likely she is desperately looking for connection and not intentionally trying to disrupt your workflow. When you hold a generous thought about the other person, you will come across entirely differently. You will be able to calmly communicate your good intent rather than speak out of frustration and annoyance.
Help Others Feel Safe
Unskilled people believe that certain topics are destined to make other people defensive. Those who are skilled at Crucial Conversations realize people don’t become defensive until they feel unsafe. They become defensive less because of what you’re saying than because of why they think you’re saying it. But when others feel respected and trust your motives, they let their guard down and begin to listen—even if the topic is unpleasant.
Communicate Your Good Intent
Start the conversation by assuring her of your positive intentions and your respect for her. And finish by kindly drawing the boundary. Let me also pose a question for you to consider. Is there a happy medium? Is there a way to both hold a boundary as well as be more available to your coworker? Can you tell her that you enjoy talking with her but are not available for uninvited drive-by conversations in the middle of the day? Maybe you can spare 10 minutes every now and then when things are slow, or over a coffee break. Perhaps your colleague is seeking friendship and connection, and you could find a way to offer some, assuming it’s in a way that is more respectful of your time and attention.
I started by sharing the promise of Crucial Conversations—that tough news can be delivered in a respectful way. I’ll end with a caveat. Just consider that even though tough news is delivered respectfully, it doesn’t mean it isn’t hard to hear. It’s possible there will be no way to say something without your coworker taking some offense. But if you do your part to get your heart right, master your emotions, make her feel safe, and communicate your good intent, how she reacts is up to her. Her response is not your responsibility. Your responsibility is to be both candid and respectful, always.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
Dear Mr. Richardson: I have a blue disabled person parking tag. What rules govern street parking in HOAs where no signs are posted prohibiting overnight parking, etc.? The security company which patrols these streets is tagging cars with warning notes saying they are in violation of parking at any time unless a guest! Thanks, A.H., Valencia
Dear A.H.: DMV license plate tags or placards do not automatically qualify residents to park where they choose in the HOA. Normally, persons with mobility disabilities would be expected to use their driveways or garages and not park on the street. If you need parking accommodations, you would need to provide the HOA with written verification of your disability and explain why you need to park on the street (instead of in your driveway or garage). As to violations claimed by the security patrol, there would need to be a written rule or CC&R provision before there can be a violation. So, ask the security patrol company and/or the HOA’s management to point out the rule or CC&R provision they believe you are violating. Best, Kelly
Dear Kelly: Our community is in violation of Americans with Disability Act. California law says where there are 500 parking spaces 2% need to be designated as handicapped spaces. Our community has only 3 instead of the 11 required by law. Who do I contact to get enforcement of this law? I am severely disabled and need help. T.J., San Diego
Dear T.J.: Normally the ADA applies to “public accommodations,” which are not normally HOAs, so I am not sure if that law and its parking requirements would apply to your association. The law more likely to be applicable to parking for disabled persons in your HOA would be the state and federal Fair Housing laws, which require reasonable accommodations for documented or obvious disabilities. However, if a resident is disabled and needs relocation of their parking space to be nearer their home or the elevator, they should submit a written request to the HOA. The HOA might be able to relocate their parking space to help them with their mobility limitations. Best regards, Kelly
Dear Kelly: Does the definition of a “protected class” also include a person who has disabilities that is continually being aggravated by loud door slamming on the part of a new neighbor who is mentally ill? This problem has been continuing and ongoing, since the parents bought a neighboring unit for their mentally ill son to live alone in. The son has committed criminal acts on the property. I have repeatedly contacted his parents, our HOA president, and the property management firm, but there has been no resolution to my dilemma to date. I am a senior citizen; have a DMV disability placard for a neck injury that results in severe headaches; and am recovering from cancer. D.A., Newport Beach
Dear D.A.: Mental illness could qualify as a disability under Fair Housing laws, but the behavior you describe could be deemed to be a nuisance. If a person’s disability is disturbing or harming other residents, allowing that disturbance to continue could be an unreasonable accommodation and therefore not protected by Fair Housing laws. Residents, disabled or not, should not have to be afraid in their homes. Sincerely, Kelly
Naming internal voices, slowing choices, and inviting diverse perspectives improve outcomes.
What voices are you listening to in order to make critical decisions for your life and the organizations you lead?
A CEO client once told me about the time she pushed her company into a joint venture that looked irresistible. The pitch deck sparkled, the recent success of a similar deal was fresh in her mind, and her intuition told her to move quickly. Six months later, the partnership unraveled due to different cultures, incompatible goals, and millions in lost investment.
When I asked her what was happening in her mind at the time, she said, “I thought I was being objective, data-driven. But in hindsight, I was listening to the voice that said, Don’t miss out. Grab the opportunity before it’s gone.”
That voice, urgent, persuasive, and seemingly rational — was it the voice of data, or was it well-oiled intuition? Perhaps it was the voice of scarcity. And scarcity tendency drove a decision that cost dearly. In our coaching we uncovered that this voice of scarcity and don’t miss out was a deep rooted one with origins from her Dad that was a product of his upbringing.
The Illusion of Objectivity
Leaders often pride themselves on rationality. We like to believe that our decisions flow logically from facts, financial models, and strategic analyses. But the truth is more complex. Decisions are rarely made in a sterile, data-only space. They are filtered through two powerful forces:
External heuristics: mental shortcuts our brains use to make fast judgments, often at the cost of accuracy.
Internal voices: the narratives and reactive mindsets that live within us and shape how we perceive the world.
Together, they form a less visible operating system that drives our leadership choices.
The External World: Decision Heuristics
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his Nobel Prize-winning research and his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), explains that our brains run on two modes:
System 1: fast, intuitive, and automatic.
System 2: slow, deliberate, and effortful.
Leaders rely heavily on System 1 because the pace of business demands speed. These shortcuts seem to be based on experience in the marketplace, yet this approach exposes us to systematic errors, such as:
Recency Effect: Overweighting the most recent information.
Confirmation Bias: Seeking evidence that supports your prior beliefs, while ignoring data that contradicts them.
Anchoring: Clinging to an initial piece of information (a price, an estimate) even when better data becomes available.
These shortcuts are not flaws in themselves, they evolved to help humans make rapid judgments. In a way, our brains want to move swiftly, but in the boardroom they can lead to costly missteps. These external biases on their own can raise the probability of faulty thinking, and when combined with the next set of factors, the inner world of misguided voices can make for a challenging landscape.
The Internal World: Voices of the Reactive Mindset
Equally powerful are the voices inside us. These are not just passing thoughts but ingrained narratives, often invisible, that whisper (or shout) as we weigh choices. In leadership development research, including The Leadership Circle Profile (Anderson & Adams, 2016), these voices are described as reactive tendencies. Four of the most common include:
Scarcity Voice: “There isn’t enough. If I don’t act now, I’ll lose.”
Approval-Seeking Voice: “What will others think? I need to please and be liked.”
Control Voice: “I can’t trust others. I need to stay in charge and minimize risk.”
Protective Voice: “Don’t take the chance. Play it safe so you won’t fail.”
These voices often present themselves as rational and prudent. Yet when unchecked, they distort judgment as much as any external bias.
When the External and Internal Interact
The real danger is when external heuristics and internal voices reinforce each other. Imagine a leader operating from scarcity. That mindset makes the availability heuristic louder; the first seemingly good option that comes to mind feels like the only option. Or consider an approval-seeking voice combining with confirmation bias, the leader only hears data that keeps their board of directors or boss happy.
This fusion of inner and outer distortion creates a powerful echo chamber, one that feels objective but is anything but.
Pathways to Better Decisions
The good news is that leaders can develop practices to interrupt these patterns. Here are three strategies that can help:
Pause and Name the Voice: When you feel the urge to decide quickly, ask: Which voice is speaking right now? Scarcity? Approval? Control? Naming the voice reduces its grip, and can counteract our strong affinity toward using intuition as the main guidance mechanism.
Slow the Process: Deliberately shift from System 1 to System 2. Use structured pauses, “pre-mortems” (imagining what could go wrong before acting), or simply sleep on a big decision.
Diversify Perspectives: Bring in others who see differently. Research shows that heterogeneous groups reduce bias and widen the range of considered options (Page, 2007).
Closing Reflection
Think back to the CEO and her failed joint venture. If she had paused and asked, “Is this my scarcity voice talking? Am I overweighting the last success because of recency bias?,” the decision may have looked different.
Inside the mind of every leader is a chorus of voices, some wise, some misleading. The next time you face a critical decision, ask yourself: What are the voices that are present in the boardroom of my mind, and what can I do to slow this down, verify assumptions, consider a broader range of options and invite trusted advisors into the process.
Two national advocacy groups that support community housing initiatives are urging the Trump administration to extend Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance coverage for mortgages on condominium units approved by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During a Labor Day breakfast interview with the Washington Examiner, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the Trump administration “may declare a national housing emergency” as soon as this fall to address a chronic housing affordability crisis.
Meanwhile, Democratic senators have petitioned Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with policy suggestions they believe could lower housing costs and expand access to affordable housing.
In collaboration with the Community Home Lenders of America (CHLA), a trade group that works on behalf of mostly small and midsize mortgage lenders, the Community Associations Institute (CAI), an advocacy body supporting condo associations, homeowners associations (HOAs) and housing cooperatives, seeks to add an agenda item to any national housing emergency declaration that may be invoked.
“For millions of Americans, especially in high-cost markets, condominiums represent the most attainable path to homeownership,” the groups wrote in a joint statement published Wednesday, citing Zillow data indicating that condos in the 25 largest U.S. metros were 54% more affordable on average than single-family homes in 2024. The CAI and CHLA request FHA loan flexibility for condos eligible under the GSEs’ revised condo guidelines.
“Since condominiums are typically more affordable than freestanding homes, a simple but effective action to add to an emergency housing list would be to allow FHA to insure condos in projects approved by Fannie and Freddie — but not by FHA,” said Scott Olson, executive director of the CHLA, in the statement.
An emergency measure
Per the Foundation of Community Association Research, the market research arm of CAI, approximately 369,000 “community associations” housed roughly 77 million people across nearly 29 million units in 2024. “Community associations” includes condominiums, cooperatives and planned communities with HOAs.
The simplicity of changing the guidelines may be overstated though, says Orest Tomaselli, a condo compliance professional who has partnered with builders, developers, lenders, community leadership and government agencies on condo inspection projects for thousands of properties around the U.S.
“It would be a wonderful idea,” Tomaselli tells Scotsman Guide. “The only caveat would be it’s a very long road if FHA were to amend their guidelines.” Many disclosures and lending requirements required of the FHA are not required of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as quasi-private entities.
Take, for example, fair housing considerations baked into the National Housing Act of 1934 that established the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Office of Housing, more commonly known as the Federal Housing Administration, within HUD. The GSEs must obey federal and state anti-discrimination laws — but not in the same way.
“Those laws render thousands of condo associations around the country ineligible because the associations have bylaws for screening prospective tenants by their credit history or to perform criminal background checks,” Tomaselli explains. Those types of covenants have been used to reject applicants on the basis of matters independent of mortgage eligibility, which can run afoul of FHA fair lending guidelines, but not those of the GSEs.
“There are several provisions for legal documents that would be necessary,” he adds, across a range of lending conditions that exist because of distinct missions at the FHA and the GSEs. “It would be very difficult.”
Olson of CHLA tells Scotsman Guide that over the last few decades, the number of FHA-insured loans has declined from an average of roughly 100,000 annually to 10,000 annually. The FHA has very limited condo risk exposure as a percentage of its overall book as a result of the declining origination volumes.
“The proposal is aimed at addressing a significant reduction in the number and percentage of condos FHA has financed,” says Olson. “We are not suggesting permanent changes but instead an emergency action, narrow at that, in this very affordable sector.”
Mounting condo costs
The CAI and CHLA suggest condos provide a clear path to affordability for FHA borrowers, and the path to homeownership for first-time homebuyers through condos is well-traveled.
An Urban Insitute study published in 2022 indicates first-time homebuyers accounted for 60% of GSE-financed condo and co-op purchases in 2021, compared to 40% of single-family homes. However, condo mortgage lending has experienced a rough-and-tumble ride for the past four years following the 2021 collapse of the Champlain Towers South complex in Surfside, Fla., which killed 98 people.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intensified scrutiny of individual complexes, eventually amending their guidelines to stop buying loans for condos in complexes where major repairs have been deferred or where condo associations have been ordered by local authorities to remedy unsafe conditions. A so-called “condo blacklist” was established for properties ineligible to receive conventional GSE mortgage financing.
These shifts pushed condo associations and HOAs to significantly increase monthly fees for existing owners and prospective buyers to satisfy new post-Surfside maintenance requirements, build reserves and cover spiking insurance costs. New regulations in Florida aimed at preventing a repeat of the Surfside collapse have introduced steep costs to cover additional inspections as well as new condo-owner association reserve fund requirements.
“Interestingly, GSE requirements on critical repairs and deferred maintenance are more rigid now than the FHA regulations for the same things,” Tomaselli notes.
In major condo markets in Florida and Texas, jacked-up fees have loaded downward pressure on condo prices, especially in contrast to single-family home prices near all-time highs. National condo prices declined annually in April 2025 for the first time in a decade, sliding 0.26%, according to Intercontinental Exchange data.
“CAI strongly supports reciprocity between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Federal Housing Administration condominium certification process and the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said Dawn M. Bauman, chief executive officer at CAI, in Wednesday’s joint statement.
Sustaining affordable homeownership
“This proposal is more narrowly focused on more flexibility in the approvals and eligibility of individual condo projects for FHA loans in those projects,” says Olson. However, extending FHA lending guidelines for GSE-eligible condos as a path to affordable homeownership for FHA borrowers may be more nuanced, as aligning condo certification guidelines does not necessarily address a mismatch in FHA and GSE borrowers’ credit profiles.
FHA borrowers generally present as less creditworthy as a function of their credit score, less liquid as a function of lower downpayments, or both. Single-family home-price gains that have rendered condos “demonstrably more affordable,” according to Olson, belie the rising costs of ongoing condo homeownership and deteriorating asset quality in key condo markets.
Florida, California and Texas have some of the highest concentrations of condos in the U.S. and have experienced some of the largest increases in homeowners insurance costs in recent years. The cost of homeowners insurance — required for mortgage borrowers with federally backed home loans — rose to nearly 10% of average monthly mortgage payments in July.
Rising flexible costs of homeownership disproportionately impact less-liquid borrowers with lower downpayments. Affordability pressures have doubled for condo owners due to the surge of condo and HOA assessment fees. The asset quality of condos has thus deteriorated, as has owners’ ability to sustain condo homeownership.
Deteriorating asset quality has put downward pressure on prices at the same time condos have become more difficult to sell because of associated homeownership costs and stricter government lending guidelines. After rapid price acceleration during the pandemic, the supply of condos nationwide has far outpaced demand, rising to a four-year high in July and softening prices further, according to a recent report by Realtor.com.
“Denying FHA type borrowers the option of buying a much more affordable condo loan pushes them into more expensive site built homes financed with FHA,” Olson adds, highlighting the up-front cost savings of lower list prices. “It is hard to see how this is good from an FHA risk perspective.”
The CMCA Study Pathway Plan is a suggested eight-week roadmap to help candidates prepare for the CMCA exam with structure and confidence. It begins with a two-week Pre-Study Phase for orientation and self-assessment, followed by a six-week Active Study Phase focused on targeted review, practice, and reinforcement across all exam domains. Designed for candidates at all experience levels, the plan provides study strategies, resources, and tools to build knowledge and address gaps—requiring about 5–10 hours per week, with flexibility to adjust based on individual needs. The CMCA Study Pathway Plan can be found beginning on Page 20 of the updated CMCA Study Guide under: Section 3: Exam Preparation and Study Pathway.
A fight between two insurers over who should cover a California HOA in a dog bite lawsuit is now playing out in federal court, raising questions that could ripple across the insurance industry.
On Aug. 29, United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) filed a complaint against Liberty Insurance Corporation in the Central District of California. At the heart of the case is whether Liberty must defend and reimburse the Palisades Homeowners Association #3 (HOA) after Ludovica “Lulu” Pietroiacovo was allegedly bitten by a pit bull owned by Adam and Amanda Gruen, residents in the HOA community.
The story starts in July 2021, when Poppy Webster, on her own behalf and as guardian ad litem for Lulu Pietroiacovo and Valentina Pietroiacovo, along with Michael Pietroiacovo, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit, titled Poppy Webster et al. v. Adam Gruen et al., names both the Gruens and the HOA as defendants. The underlying action alleges strict liability against the Gruens and negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, and public/private nuisance against both the Gruens and the HOA. The trial is set for Sept. 2.
USLI says it provided commercial liability coverage to the HOA, while Liberty issued a homeowners policy to the Gruens. The big question: Should Liberty step in and defend the HOA, or does that job fall to USLI? USLI argues that Liberty’s policy language covers “any person or organization legally responsible for animals owned by” the insureds – in this case, the HOA, since the incident involved a resident’s pet.
The HOA’s rules, known as CC&Rs, also come into play. These rules state that owners, mortgagees, occupants, and all other persons acquiring any interest in the property are subject to the rights, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and obligations set forth in the CC&Rs. Article VIII, Section 10 of the CC&Rs provides that no animals may be kept which result in an annoyance or are obnoxious to residents in the vicinity, and that any owner shall be absolutely liable to each and all remaining owners, their families, guests, and invitees, and to the association, for any and all damage to person or property caused by any pets brought upon or kept upon the units.
But Liberty has pushed back. The company denied the HOA’s request for defense and indemnity, stating that the HOA was being sued not due to the dog bite incident itself, but because the HOA did not take appropriate action against the Gruens in response to prior incidents involving their dog. Liberty also claims the HOA does not meet the policy’s definition of an “insured,” so it’s off the hook.
The back-and-forth didn’t stop there. The HOA kept trying to get Liberty to take responsibility, but Liberty stuck to its position. The most recent denial came in a letter dated Aug. 6, just weeks before the trial.
Now, USLI is asking the court to declare that the HOA is covered under Liberty’s policy, that Liberty must defend and indemnify the HOA, and that USLI’s own policy only kicks in after Liberty’s is exhausted. USLI also wants Liberty to reimburse any amounts USLI has already paid or may pay in connection with the underlying action.
For insurance professionals, this case is a real-world example of how policy language and HOA rules can collide, especially when multiple insurers are involved. It’s a reminder to check the fine print and understand how different policies interact – because when a claim hits, the answer isn’t always clear.
As of now, the court hasn’t made any findings on the merits of USLI’s claims or Liberty’s defenses. But with trial dates looming and both insurers holding their ground, the outcome could shape how similar disputes are handled in the future.
The rights of shareholders to transfer their shares vary from building to building. The answer lies in the co-op’s governing documents.
By Jill Terreri Ramos The New York Times Real Estate
Q: I live in a Housing Development Fund Corporation, or HDFC, co-op in New York City. Recently, an original shareholder added her adult daughter as a shareholder, and the daughter is a chronic nonpayer. The board doesn’t think she can afford the apartment, and would like the chance to financially vet her. After the daughter moved in, the original shareholder moved to a different HDFC co-op, but the shares were never transferred. Can we require that the shareholder certificate be revised to reflect the daughter’s sole ownership? And can the board financially vet her as a sole shareholder?
A: If the daughter has already been added to the lease, then the board cannot go back and vet her after the fact, unless there was some conditional agreement when she was added. What’s done is done.
Peter Massa, a partner at Fox Rothschild in New York who works with condominium and co-op boards, suggested checking the co-op’s governing documents, regulatory agreements and records for this unit. Was the daughter actually added to the lease? Look to see if there are transfer fees, and read the assignment provisions to see what the board’s review rights are.
If the daughter was never added to the lease, then she may be there illegally. It’s possible that shareholders in your building have a right to transfer their shares to a family member without board consent, but the board can likely prevent any transfer until the maintenance is paid.
Like other co-ops, the board in a Housing Development Fund Corporation co-op has a duty to manage the co-op’s finances in the interest of all shareholders. (There are more than 1,100 HDFC co-ops in New York City, and they have income and resale restrictions.) Almost all HDFC co-ops require owner occupancy, so the original shareholder could be in violation of this rule. But, generally, it’s not in the co-op’s interest to enforce this, since the daughter is a shareholder.
“You want to be able to have her on the hook,” said Darryl M. Vernon, a partner at Vernon & Ginsburg in New York. “She might be able to get her daughter to pay.”
If the daughter isn’t paying the maintenance, you can take action against her — either a nonpayment case or a chronic nonpayment case, depending on how many times she’s failed to pay. In a nonpayment case, the daughter can pay and stay in the apartment, but a chronic nonpayment case could lead to an eviction.
“It’s rare, but it can happen if it’s extreme,” Mr. Vernon said.
A couple recently closed on an apartment in a homeowners association electronically rather than in person. They assumed their real estate agent had told them everything they needed to know about the deal. After the closing, however, the buyers were surprised to learn about expensive aspects of their new home, including a separate HOA tax. Should the buyers have demanded an in-person closing? Are there risks that first-time buyers, in particular, should be aware of before they agree to a remote closing?
Most real estate closings — that momentous occasion when documents are signed, money is transferred and keys are handed over — are conducted in person, replies the Ask Real Estate column in The New York Times. This allows the attorneys, brokers, notaries and buyers to communicate closely and iron out any last wrinkles in a deal. But remote closings, which allow buyers and sellers to finalize a sale without being in the same room, are legal in many states, and they became increasingly popular during the pandemic, including in New York.
It’s certainly more convenient to not have to assemble all those people in one place at one time. But is the convenience worth it?
“It’s easier to have people in a room talking to each other,” says Lisa Lippman, a broker at Brown Harris Stevens in New York.
First-time buyers, especially, should press for an in-person closing so they can fully comprehend the process, all of the documents involved, and any last-minute issues that crop up, such as that unexpected HOA tax.
Remote closings can also take longer, as documents and checks have to move among parties at different locations. When everyone is together, the process often moves more smoothly; if one participant raises an issue, it can be addressed at the table.
Special circumstances, such as illness or distance, may make a remote closing unavoidable. No matter which course you choose, make sure that you get the closing statement ahead of time, Lippman advises. This document should list all financial aspects of the transaction.
All of this points to the importance of the buyer doing thorough due diligence long before the closing date.
“Whether you have an in-person or a remote closing, it’s a matter of the information you’ve gathered beforehand,” says Andreas Cristou, an associate at the law firm Woods Lonergan.
Fees, assessments, taxes, and maintenance or common charges should be disclosed before you sign a contract to buy the home. If, say, your seller’s tax bill is low because of tax breaks he might receive, or if you will have to pay a “mansion tax,” you should know that, too. Your broker and lawyer can be good resources, and if you’re buying in a co-op or condo, you can ask the board or building management for information about the costs to live there.
This should all be set in stone before the closing, whether it’s remote or in-person.
Could this case reshape how insurers handle large property claims?
By Matthew Sellers for Insurance Business
Meadowview Village Owners Association is suing Federal Insurance Company over a denied $16.3 million property claim for hidden water damage at a major condo complex.
Meadowview Village Owners Association, the nonprofit entity responsible for a 163-unit condominium complex in Redmond, Washington, is in a legal dispute with Federal Insurance Company over a denied property insurance claim. The case began in Washington state court on July 25, but was later moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, where it now raises important questions about the scope of coverage under a commercial all-risk property policy.
The dispute began after Meadowview Village Owners Association discovered hidden water damage in the exterior walls and framing of its condominium buildings. In July 2023, the Association’s consultants, Evolution Architecture and Charter Construction, conducted investigations that revealed water damage at multiple locations. The Association submitted an insurance claim to Federal Insurance Company, which had issued policy number D97362129001, effective from Sept. 1, 2022, to Sept. 1, 2023.
According to the association’s complaint, the insurance policy in question is an all-risk policy, meaning it covers all risks of direct physical loss or damage unless specifically excluded. The Association contends that the policy should cover the hidden water damage, which it claims was caused by a combination of weather conditions, such as rain and wind-driven rain, and construction defects. The Association cited several Washington court decisions that interpreted similar policy language to provide coverage for damage resulting from both covered and excluded causes.
Federal Insurance Company, after conducting its own investigation, denied the claim. The insurer cited exclusions in the policy for “faulty, inadequate, or defective construction or maintenance,” as well as a “neglect” exclusion. Federal argued that the “neglect” exclusion applies when an insured fails to use reasonable means to save and preserve property from further damage at and after the time of loss. Federal also stated that the policy’s “commencing” condition, which relates to when the damage began, was not satisfied. Additionally, Federal asserted that the association knew about the damage before the policy was issued, making the loss ineligible for coverage.
The association disputed these points, arguing that the exclusions do not apply because the primary causes of the damage were weather conditions and faulty construction, not neglect. The association also maintained that the damage was hidden and unknown until it was uncovered during the 2023 investigation. The complaint alleges breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Association seeks declaratory relief, monetary damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees, with claimed repair costs of $16.3 million.
Federal Insurance Company removed the case from King County Superior Court to federal court, citing diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy. The case is currently ongoing, with a trial scheduled for July 27, 2026. As of now, no final decision has been issued.
This case is potentially significant for insurance professionals because it addresses the interpretation of all-risk insurance policies in the context of property damage caused by both weather events and construction deficiencies. The outcome could influence how similar claims are handled and how policy language is interpreted in Washington and potentially beyond. As the trial date approaches, the insurance industry will be watching closely for developments in this closely contested dispute.
Great leaders know that their way isn’t always the right way.
Psychology Today
Key points
Great leaders demonstrate flexibility.
Part of being flexible is recognizing that your behaviors and habits may not always be best.
Employees have preferences for how and when they work that are important for leaders to attend to.
The greater the match between an employee’s work preferences and how they actually get work done, the better.
Have you ever watched someone work and thought, “That’s not the way I would do it”? It’s natural to feel defensive about your own work habits. If you didn’t think they were effective, you probably wouldn’t engage in them. But, in our research, we find that it’s exactly this kind of thinking that gets leaders in trouble. There are many different ways to go about completing the same task or solving the same problem. But leaders often believe that their way is the right way to approach a task or problem, and forget that others may have effective strategies as well.
More than that, different people work differently. That means that a strategy that’s effective for you may be ineffective for someone else. For example, imagine George, who is naturally an early riser, gets up at 5:30 a.m. to start his day. After exercising and eating breakfast, he starts his workday at 7:00 a.m. He prefers to segment his work and life from one another. So, from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., George focuses solely on work. At 3:00 p.m. each day, George closes his laptop to pick up his kids from school and keeps his evening free to spend time with his family. In his view, his success is due to his ability to get a lot of work done early and to really focus on the task at hand when he’s working.
Now, imagine Grace, naturally a night owl, who gets up at 8:30 a.m. to start her day. Engaging in a similar morning routine as George, Grace starts her workday at 10:00 a.m. She prefers to integrate her work and life tasks throughout the day, which means that she tends to extend her workday into the later hours of the night. At 7:00 p.m. each night, she stops working formally but continues to monitor her emails and complete minor work tasks until 9:00 p.m. During that time, she’s also preparing dinner and doing some evening chores. If Grace reports to George, he may view her habits as healthy and productive. He might even advise her to change her schedule to better align with his. Given his success as a leader, he might think it would help Grace to emulate his work habits.
Yet, George’s assumptions are wrong, despite that they align with the assumptions that many leaders hold about their own working styles versus those of others. So what’s the problem with George’s advice? It’s entirely possible that George and Grace are equally productive, despite that they work in totally different ways. George is an early bird chronotype who likes to segment work from life, while Grace is a night owl who likes to integrate these two domains together. Research shows that neither of their approaches is right or wrong. The key is to allow people to work in the way that best suits their natural preferences. When employees have to work in ways that are misaligned with their preferences, they are more likely to become dissatisfied and burnt out.
So, what do great leaders do instead? Great leaders recognize that there are many ways to be productive and that their way is just one of many ways to succeed. Instead of expecting that others will structure their workdays exactly as they do, they allow employees to set their own schedules and to follow their own rhythms. Of course, there are certainly times when employees may need to go against their natural tendencies—for a big client meeting or all-hands call, for example, when scheduling according to each person’s preferences is likely impossible. But for standing meetings or other recurring work blocks in which leaders and employees have more control over timing, leaning into employee preferences for working styles, times, and approaches is useful. For instance, if you are scheduling a standing meeting with a person who is naturally most alert in the morning, but you are a night owl, picking a time in the late morning or early afternoon might work for both of you.
The main point is this: Great leaders are flexible. But part of being flexible is being humble enough to recognize that your way isn’t the only way to achieve success. There are many pathways toward success that employees might follow. Letting them pursue the pathway that best aligns with their productivity patterns can only increase the likelihood that they will thrive.
