Foundation crack

There is a foundation crack outside the kitchen wall of a Garden Unit.
Crack was discovered while unit owner was preparing to fix a warped/buckling floor, and damage was determined to stem from the foundation crack.
In order to fix the foundation crack, the unit's kitchen requires partial demo.
How does association determine what portion of the kitchen rebuild is their responsibility.

Thank you, but that is not clearly outlined in our declarations, and hence, my post here. It clearly states what is common & what is limited common elements. It is not clear who bears the responsibility when in order to repair a common element, the elements within a unit owners unit have to be destroyed.
Hoping to find some similar circumstance and how it was handled.

(1) Often who is liable for what in such a situation is buried in the more difficult legalese of a condominium declaration.

(2) Often insurance companies duke out who is going to pay for what in a situation like the OP's.

Axe-u-lee... everyone should talk to their own insurance agents about this. What I was told by our association's agent that the person who insures the particular component (as defined in the governing docs) is the one who pays for repairs *unless it was an insurable event and the association has all-included insurance.* However, there can be exceptions, so it depends what the individual policies say.

Many associations make the mistake of assuming that damage which originates in the common elements is always the association's responsibility. **This is not the case.**

For example, suppose a tornado rips the roof off a building and parts of the unit below are damaged. If the association carries all-in insurance, then the association's insurance will pay for repairs because storms are an insurable event, but excluding the owner's personal belongings. (Think of the unit as a box and then flip it over. Everything that falls is the unit owner's personal property and their responsibility.) If the association does not carry all-in insurance, then the interior repairs are the unit owner's responsibility (the box analogy does not apply in this case.)

However, a crack in a foundation or wall would probably not be considered an insurable event unless it resulted from an earthquake or some such. If this is the case, then the association would pay for repairs to the common elements and the unit owner would pay for repairs to the interior. The unit owner's insurance may pay for these repairs.

But these are just rules of thumb, and there can be many exceptions depending on what the governing docs say and what the insurance policies say. The OP and the unit owner should not assume anything until the insurers have their say. Don't expect this to be resolved quickly, since other professionals such as structural engineers may get involved.

It's been confirmed that the insurances for either party will not cover any of this.

I hope that we can resolve it amicably and fairly within the association. Thank you for taking time to give your insight.

So, not an insurable event.

In this case, it would be considered maintenance. Look in your Declaration or CC&R. Check the definition of "unit", "common element" and "limited common element". Then check the section that talks about unit owner responsibilities. It will probably say something like the unit owner is responsible for maintaining the components of the "unit". If this is the case, then the unit owner must pay for repairs to the unit.

Several years ago I got an unpleasant surprise when I found myself out of pocket by several thousand dollars as a result of a slow leak in the pipe inside the interior wall of the unit above my next door neighbors. Our COA paid for none of the repairs. The owners of the damaged units were on the hook for everything in their units. This is condo living, and few people understand this until they get an unpleasant surprise of their own.

If we had a similar situation in my community, the board would talk to both the attorney and our insurance agent. This will establish who is legally responsible for what repairs and will give the necessary parties a heads-up in the event that the unit owner decides to sue.

It is very tempting for board members to want to "do the right thing" and not be bad guys. But to be blunt, the board has a duty to do right *by the COA as a whole*. Taking on repairs of the unit, if this contradicts what your governing docs say, is putting the interest of an individual owner ahead of the interest of the COA. This would be a breach of your fiduciary duty. I get that the unit owner doesn't want to pay for the damaged unit, but why should his neighbors have to do so?

Sometimes board members have to be harda**es. And I say this as someone who has been on both sides of issues like this.

OK, I misread the original post.

If the COA will be causing additional damage while repairing the cracked foundation, then I agree that they should pay to replace anything that they damage. If there was additional damage beyond what the repair crews will cause, that's a potential source of conflict since it's tempting to try to slide that in there as well.

I agree with Jeff about talking to a number of contractors and getting their opinions. It may be possible to save and replace some of the unit's fixtures.

You should also get an inventory with photos of what's in the unit before all the work starts. Also produce an itemized list of what will be replaced at the COA's expense and what will not, and get signatures on both documents. If there was existing damage beyond what the repair crews will cause, that's a potential source of conflict since it's tempting to try to slide that repair over to the COA as well. Owners also can be tempted to get themselves free upgrades by claiming that the original fixtures were more upscale than they actually were. An initial inventory with photos will help prevent "misunderstandings".