Who Pays When a Florida Condo Association’s Vendor Damages Your Unit During Repairs?

How Florida Law Handles This Issue

Chapter 718, the Florida Condominium Act, allocates maintenance duties, insurance obligations, reconstruction responsibilities, and access rights between the association and unit owners, and those layers interact with common-law negligence and premises-liability principles.

Section 718.113(1) places primary responsibility for maintaining the common elements on the association, subject to any valid reallocation of limited-common-element maintenance in the declaration. In Walters, the Third District relied on a declaration that adopted Section 718.113(1) and expressly put common-area maintenance on the association, holding that combination created a non-delegable duty to maintain the dock safely and made the association jointly and severally liable for the negligence of its dock contractor.

Section 718.111(11)(j) governs reconstruction after insurable events and provides that property the association must insure under paragraph (f) “shall be reconstructed, repaired, or replaced as necessary by the association as a common expense,” subject to exceptions, including the owner-fault carve-out in subsection (j)1. That carve-out shifts certain costs to an owner only when the damage is caused by the owner, the owner’s family, occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees; contractors hired and directed by the association do not plainly fall within that list, so applying the carve-out in pure contractor-fault scenarios is difficult to square with the statutory text.

The association also holds an irrevocable right of access to units when necessary for common-element maintenance or for parts of units the association must maintain. Contractors typically enter units under that authority and to perform work that discharges the association’s maintenance obligations, making it reasonable — especially in light of Walters and other non-delegable-duty decisions — to treat the association as a key defendant alongside the contractor when the contractor causes damage in the course of that work. The allocation of maintenance, repair, and reconstruction responsibilities under Florida condominium law can significantly affect liability when property damage occurs, and a Boca Raton, FL condo lawyer can help unit owners and associations understand their rights and obligations in disputes involving contractors, common elements, and association duties.

Key Legal Rules 

1. Association maintenance duty for common elements.
   Maintenance of common elements is the association’s responsibility under Section 718.113(1), Florida Statutes, and many declarations adopt and reinforce that allocation; in that setting, courts have treated the association’s duty to maintain common areas safely as non-delegable, meaning the association can be directly liable for contractor negligence in performing that duty.
2. Reconstruction after insurable events.
   Any portion of the condominium property that the association is required to insure under Section 718.111(11)(f) and that is damaged by an insurable event must be reconstructed, repaired, or replaced by the association as a common expense, unless one of the enumerated exceptions in Section 718.111(11)(j)1-4 applies or there is a valid opt-out or permissible allocation under the declaration.
3. Owner-fault carve-out is narrow.
   Section 718.111(11)(j)1 shifts repair costs to an owner only when the damage is caused by that owner, members of the owner’s family, unit occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees; association-hired contractors do not clearly fit that list, so using this carve-out to shift contractor-caused damage to an owner is subject to challenge.
4. Non-delegable duty and contractor negligence.
   When an association has a non-delegable duty to maintain common areas safely (arising from statute and the declaration), it can be jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to its contractor performing that duty, as Walters and Pembroke Lakes demonstrate in the premises-liability context.
5. Insurance structure.
   Under Section 718.111(11), the association’s master policy must insure the building structure and certain components as originally installed or as approved alterations, while many interior finishes, improvements, and personal property are excluded and typically fall under the owner’s HO-6 policy; whether the master policy or HO-6 is “primary” in a given situation turns on both the statute and the policies’ actual terms, including any “other insurance” clauses.
6. HO-6 payments and association liability.
   Payment by an owner’s HO-6 carrier for interior items or personal property does not automatically extinguish the owner’s potential claims against the association or the contractor for the underlying negligence; the HO-6 carrier may assert subrogation rights against the responsible parties’ insurers.
7. Contracting power and responsibility.
   The association’s power to contract under Section 718.111(1)(a), Florida Statutes, includes engaging contractors to perform maintenance and repair work, and that contracting power is paired with potential liability for negligent hiring, oversight, or failure to enforce indemnity rights, in addition to any non-delegable-duty exposure.
8. Owner enforcement mechanisms.
   Owners can bring actions under Section 718.303 to enforce compliance with the Condominium Act and governing documents and may also pursue common-law claims such as negligence and breach of contract against the association and the contractor to recover property-damage losses.

Comparison Table: Where the Recovery Comes From in Vendor-Damage Scenarios

How This Issue Typically Comes Up

Scenario 1: Plumbing Contractor Floods a Unit While Repairing a Common Pipe — Miami-Dade

A unit owner in a Miami-Dade high-rise condominium comes home to find water flooding the kitchen from the ceiling. The association had hired a plumbing contractor to replace a section of the common-area supply line running through the unit above, and the contractor improperly capped a connection, causing extensive damage to the kitchen ceiling, cabinets, flooring, and appliances.

The association’s management company tells the owner to file a claim with her HO-6 carrier and pursue the plumber if she wants reimbursement. That response is incomplete and often incorrect, because the contractor was performing work tied to the association’s maintenance obligations under Section 718.113(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida law recognizes that a party with a non-delegable duty may be jointly and severally liable for the negligence of the contractor performing that duty.

In that situation, the owner can often pursue both the plumbing contractor for direct negligence and the association because the association cannot automatically avoid responsibility by characterizing the plumber as an independent contractor. The owner should also review the declaration, any valid statutory opt-out, the association’s master policy, and the contractor’s insurance to determine how the loss will ultimately be funded.

Scenario 2: Roofing Crew Damages Interior While Performing Association-Directed Roof Replacement — Tampa

A unit owner in a Tampa mid-rise condominium returns from a weekend trip to find that the roofing crew hired by the association to replace the building’s roof left a section of the roof membrane unsealed. A rainstorm then allows water into the unit, damaging drywall, carpeting, and furniture.

The association argues that because the damage appeared “inside the unit,” the owner’s HO-6 policy should be the only source of recovery. That argument oversimplifies the analysis, because the roof is a common element the association is generally responsible to maintain under Section 718.113(1), Florida Statutes, and contractor-caused damage arising from that work does not cease to be association-related simply because the resulting water intrusion manifests inside the unit.

Where the contractor was performing association-assigned roof work, the owner can usually assert claims against both the roofing contractor and the association. The association may still dispute the extent of covered damage or whether some items belong under the HO-6 policy, but it generally cannot just point to the contractor or the location of the damage and disclaim its own potential liability.

Scenario 3: HVAC Technician Damages Unit’s Air Handler While Servicing Common Equipment — Broward

A unit owner in Broward County is notified that a mechanical contractor will enter the unit to service equipment connected to the building’s common HVAC system. During the visit, the contractor damages the owner’s air handler and part of the unit’s ductwork.

The association responds that the HVAC technician was merely an independent contractor, so any claim must be made only against the technician or the HVAC company. That position is too broad, because independent-contractor status does not automatically eliminate the association’s exposure when the contractor is performing work connected to duties the association is required to carry out, especially where the declaration and statutory framework place responsibility for the relevant maintenance on the association.

In that setting, the contractor may be directly liable for the damage, and the association may also face liability based on its non-delegable maintenance obligations, the declaration, and its own conduct in selecting, directing, or supervising the work. The owner should therefore evaluate claims against both parties rather than accepting the association’s attempt to shift the entire problem to the contractor alone.

Common Mistakes Associations Make

• Here is a revised version of Common Mistakes Associations Make that aligns with the non-delegable-duty/joint-liability framing and avoids overreliance on agency terminology. Section 718.111(5)(a) gives the association an irrevocable right of access for specified maintenance purposes, and Section 718.111(12) broadly opens official records to inspection, while Section 718.111(11)(j)1 contains the owner-fault carve-out you are addressing.
• Common Mistakes Associations Make
• Directing the unit owner to file a claim with the HO-6 carrier as if the owner’s personal policy were the only or primary path to recovery. An HO-6 policy often covers items the association is not required to insure, but when the damage arises from contractor work performed to discharge the association’s maintenance obligations, the owner may have claims against both the contractor and the association, and the association cannot simply deflect responsibility by pointing only to the HO-6 carrier.
• Refusing to share the contractor’s agreement, scope of work, and relevant insurance information when the owner requests them. These materials will often qualify as official records or otherwise be central to evaluating the association’s statutory duties, the contractor’s role, available insurance, and any indemnity obligations, and owners generally have inspection rights under Section 718.111(12), subject to the statute’s limited exceptions.
• Treating the location of the damage — inside the unit — as if that alone shifts responsibility to the owner. The better analysis is to ask who hired the contractor, what work the contractor was performing, whether the work fell within the association’s maintenance obligations under Section 718.113(1), and whether the resulting damage involved property the association must insure or repair under Section 718.111(11).
• Invoking Section 718.111(11)(j)1, Florida Statutes, against the owner when the only negligent actor was the association’s contractor. That carve-out applies when the damage is caused by the owner, the owner’s family, occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees, so using it to shift contractor-caused damage to the owner is difficult to reconcile with the statutory text and is open to challenge, even though the declaration and any valid opt-out must still be reviewed.
• Treating the contractor’s “independent contractor” label as if it ends the inquiry. Florida appellate decisions recognize that a party with a non-delegable duty can still be jointly and severally liable for the negligence of a contractor performing that duty, and Walters specifically applied that principle to a condominium association’s common-area maintenance obligations.
• Failing to pursue contractual indemnity, additional-insured rights, or other contractual risk-transfer protections against the contractor. Vendor agreements often contain indemnity and insurance provisions, and an association that ignores those protections may be leaving important recovery sources unused while simultaneously trying to shift the practical burden of the loss to the owner.
• Conflating the association’s statutory right of access with a license to avoid liability for damage caused during the work. Section 718.111(5)(a) authorizes entry when necessary for maintenance, repair, replacement, or damage prevention, but it does not erase ordinary negligence principles or the association’s potential responsibility when contractor work tied to association duties causes damage.
• Refusing to evaluate both liability tracks at the same time. In many contractor-damage cases, the owner may have a direct negligence claim against the contractor, a direct or non-delegable-duty-based claim against the association, a master-policy claim for covered property, and an HO-6 claim for excluded property, and associations make the situation worse when they pretend only one of those avenues exists.

What Associations Typically Argue and Why It Fails

Argument 1: “The Vendor Was an Independent Contractor — We Are Not Responsible for Independent Contractors”

This argument overlooks how Florida law treats duties that are imposed by statute. When an association hires a vendor to perform work it is required to perform under Section 718.113(1), Florida Statutes, it is delegating performance of a statutory obligation, not merely hiring a casual service provider. The vendor enters the unit under the association’s right of access in Section 718.111(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and performs work tied to the association’s maintenance responsibility. Even if the vendor is labeled an independent contractor, Florida courts may still hold the association liable for damage resulting from the performance of such duties, depending on the facts and the legal theories asserted.

Argument 2: “Your HO-6 Has Primary Coverage — File Your Claim There”

An HO‑6 policy typically covers property excluded from the association’s master policy, so it is often a secondary source of recovery for damage to items the association is required to insure and a primary source for damage to items that fall outside the association’s insurance obligations, depending on the policies’ terms. The master policy, issued pursuant to Section 718.111(11)(f), provides primary coverage for insured-event losses to the condominium property as originally installed, as-built improvements authorized in writing, and floor, wall, and ceiling coverings. When the vendor’s work triggers a covered loss, the master policy responds first. HO-6 payment for excluded items does not extinguish the association’s liability for the underlying damage.

Argument 3: “Section 718.111(11)(j)1. Shifts the Cost to You Because the Damage Is Inside Your Unit”

Section 718.111(11)(j)1, Florida Statutes, applies when the damage is caused by a unit owner, family member, occupant, tenant, guest, or invitee. A vendor hired by the association does not fit into any of those categories, and the carve‑out is triggered by fault attributable to those specifically listed parties, not simply by where the damage occurs. Treating vendor‑caused damage as if it automatically fell within this carve‑out ignores the statute’s wording, although declarations and any opt‑out from the statutory insurance framework can still affect the broader allocation of costs.

How Statutes and Legal Opinions Resolve This

Section 718.113(1), Section 718.111(5)(a), and Section 718.111(11)(j), Florida Statutes, do not operate alone. In contractor-damage disputes, those statutes should be read together with Florida appellate decisions addressing non-delegable duties, especially Walters v. Beach Club Villas Condo., Inc., 301 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), where the Third District held that a condominium association could be jointly and severally liable for the negligence of its contractor when the contractor was performing work tied to the association’s maintenance obligations.

The first question is who hired and directed the contractor. If the association hired the contractor to perform common-element maintenance or repair, that supports treating the contractor’s work as part of the association’s own maintenance function rather than as a wholly separate undertaking. If the owner hired the contractor for unit work, the analysis shifts toward owner responsibility and possible application of Section 718.111(11)(j)1, which addresses damage caused by the owner, the owner’s family, occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees.

The second question is whether the contractor was performing work the association was legally obligated to perform. Section 718.113(1) makes maintenance of the common elements the association’s responsibility, and Section 718.111(5)(a) gives the association the irrevocable right of access to units when necessary to perform that work or prevent damage. In Walters, the court stressed that the declaration adopted the Condominium Act and placed responsibility for the common-area dock on the association, and it held that “the Declaration imposed an additional nondelegable duty on Beach Club to maintain the dock and the other common areas.”

That is why the association could not escape liability simply by pointing to its contractor. The court explained that “Beach Club’s hiring of Z-Max did not disclaim or negate its nondelegable duty to Walters,” and therefore “Beach Club is jointly and severally liable to Walters for any portion of damages attributable to Z-Max.” The court also quoted the broader rule that “when an owner owes a non-delegable duty of care to a plaintiff who obtains a verdict assigning negligence to the owner and a party contracted by the owner, the owner becomes jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to the contracted party.”

Applied to unit-damage cases, the same framework means that when an association’s contractor damages property while performing association-assigned maintenance, the contractor may be directly liable in negligence and the association may also be liable because the duty being carried out is one the association cannot simply delegate away. In other words, the association generally cannot point to the contractor and say the owner must pursue only the contractor.

Section 718.111(11)(j) still matters because it governs reconstruction, repair, and replacement of condominium property the association is required to insure when that property is damaged by an insurable event. Under that subsection, the association ordinarily must reconstruct, repair, or replace the insured property as a common expense unless a statutory exception applies, there is a valid opt-out, or the declaration lawfully allocates deductibles or uninsured portions differently.

The owner-fault carve-out in Section 718.111(11)(j)1 remains narrower than many associations argue. That provision applies when damage is caused by “a unit owner, the members of his or her family, unit occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees,” so when the only negligent actor is the association’s contractor performing association work, using that carve-out to shift the loss to the owner is difficult to reconcile with the statutory text, although the declaration and any valid opt-out still must be reviewed carefully.

So when both questions point back to the association — the association hired the contractor, and the contractor was performing work the association was obligated to perform — the legal result is usually that the owner has claims against both the contractor and the association. The contractor may be directly liable in negligence, the association may be liable under Walters-style non-delegable-duty principles and under the statutory and contractual maintenance framework, and the ultimate funding of the loss will depend on the master policy, the contractor’s liability policy, the owner’s HO-6 policy, the declaration, and any valid statutory opt-out.

Edge Cases and Nuances

What If the Vendor Was Performing Work on a Limited Common Element Assigned to the Owner?

Section 718.113(1), Fla. Stat., excepts from the association’s maintenance duty any limited common elements for which the declaration assigns maintenance responsibility to the unit owner. If the vendor was performing maintenance on a limited common element that the declaration assigns to the owner, the association’s argument that the owner bears responsibility has greater footing. However, the threshold question remains who hired the vendor. If the association hired the vendor to perform the work — even if the work concerned a limited common element — the association assumed responsibility for directing that work. An owner who is uncertain about the maintenance assignment for a particular element should review the declaration carefully and consult counsel before assuming cost responsibility.

What If the Vendor Has Insurance but Denies the Claim?

A vendor’s certificate of insurance demonstrates that a policy was in force at the time the certificate was issued — it does not guarantee that the policy covers the specific loss. If the vendor’s carrier denies the claim, the owner has two parallel recovery paths: (1) a direct civil claim against the association for breach of its maintenance duty under Section 718.113(1), Fla. Stat., and breach of the declaration; and (2) a subrogation action by the owner’s HO-6 carrier against the vendor’s carrier if the HO-6 carrier has paid a covered claim. The owner should not assume that a carrier denial ends the inquiry. Both paths remain open simultaneously.

What If the Association Attempts to Charge the Owner for the Repair?

An association that imposes a special assessment or a direct charge on the unit owner for repair costs arising from the association’s own vendor’s damage is misapplying Section 718.111(11)(j)1., Fla. Stat. The owner should dispute the charge in writing, identify the specific statutory basis for the association’s claim (which the association will be unable to provide if the vendor caused the damage), and assert the owner’s rights under Section 718.303, Fla. Stat., including the right to bring an enforcement action against the association. An improperly imposed special assessment can be challenged through the process established in Section 718.303.

What About Damage Caused Before the Association’s Right of Access Is Formally Invoked?

Section 718.111(5)(a), Fla. Stat., describes the association’s right of access as irrevocable and applicable when necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of common elements or of portions of a unit the association is required to maintain. The irrevocable nature of the right means the association does not need to formally request the owner’s permission each time it sends a vendor to perform maintenance. If the vendor enters the unit on the association’s direction — even without separate advance notice to the owner — the right of access framework still applies and the association is still the responsible principal.

What Homeowners Should Do

1. Document the damage immediately: Take photographs and video from multiple angles and, if possible, capture time stamped images. Record the condition of the affected areas before mitigation, note the date and time, and describe what you observed. This record will help establish both causation and the full extent of the loss.
2. Make a written records and information demand: Send a written request to the association for: (a) the contractor’s agreement with the association; (b) the scope of work being performed at the time of the damage; and (c) relevant insurance information (including certificates of insurance). Send the demand by email and certified mail to the association’s registered agent and management company, and keep copies of everything you send and receive.
3. Formally notify the association about the contractor caused damage: In a separate written notice, tell the association that its contractor caused damage inside your unit, describe the damage in reasonable detail, and demand a prompt written response confirming that the association will arrange inspection and appropriate mitigation. A slow or non response is a practical signal that you may need to escalate the claim.
4. Notify your HO 6 carrier while preserving liability claims: Promptly report the loss to your HO 6 carrier to protect your coverage rights, but clearly identify the association’s contractor as the party that caused the damage and explain that the contractor was performing work for the association. Make clear that you are preserving your carrier’s subrogation rights against the responsible parties and that you are not conceding that you, as the owner, were at fault.
5. Request the master policy declarations and key insurance details: Ask the association for the master policy declarations page and any summary showing coverage limits, deductibles, and the carrier. These documents are generally part of the association’s official records, which owners usually have the right to inspect and copy under Section 718.111(12), Florida Statutes, and they will help you and your attorney evaluate how the loss should be allocated between the master policy, your HO 6, and other sources.
6. Obtain an independent repair estimate: Retain a licensed contractor who is not affiliated with the association or its contractor to prepare a written estimate for the full cost to restore your unit to its pre loss condition. An independent estimate gives you a realistic valuation of the claim and provides a benchmark when negotiating with the association, its insurer, and your HO 6 carrier.
7. Challenge any attempt to use the owner fault carve out against you: If the association cites Section 718.111(11)(j)1, Florida Statutes, to shift costs to you, demand in writing that it identify the specific person it claims is the responsible party and which enumerated category (owner, family member, occupant, tenant, guest, or invitee) that person supposedly falls into. Where the only negligent actor is an association hired contractor performing association work, the carve out generally does not fit, and you should say so expressly in your response.

When Legal Action May Be Necessary

Legal action may be appropriate when the association refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for contractor-caused damage and tells the owner to pursue recovery exclusively through the owner’s HO-6 carrier. In Miami-Dade, Tampa, and Broward condominium communities, this kind of deflection is common — associations often treat contractor-caused damage as the owner’s problem without seriously engaging with the statutory framework and case law that allocate responsibilities. When the association’s denial rests on an aggressive or incorrect reading of Section 718.111(11)(j)1, Florida Statutes, or on the incorrect assertion that independent-contractor status completely eliminates the association’s potential responsibility, the owner may have a strong basis for a direct enforcement action under Section 718.303, along with related negligence and contract claims.

Legal action is also warranted when the association admits that damage occurred but refuses to produce the contractor’s agreement and certificate of insurance, refuses to assess and document the loss, or attempts to impose a special assessment or direct charge on the unit owner for repair costs that, under the statutory framework and most declarations, are more appropriately treated as association responsibilities. In many contractor-damage scenarios, those responses are at odds with the association’s obligations under Section 718.113(1) and Section 718.111(11)(j), Florida Statutes, and they justify escalation beyond informal correspondence.

When the association’s carrier and the contractor’s carrier dispute coverage, point fingers, or delay payment, the owner should not allow that insurance-versus-insurance dispute to stall direct claims. The two tracks — insurance claims and direct civil claims against the association and contractor — can proceed in parallel. A homeowner-side attorney who understands Chapter 718, the declaration, and the non-delegable-duty case law can coordinate those tracks to maximize recovery from all available sources while preserving the owner’s rights and avoiding unintended waivers.

Actionable Summary Table

Related Knowledge — Cross-Chapter Linking

The maintenance obligation under Section 718.113(1), Fla. Stat., applies to condominium associations governed by Chapter 718. Homeowners’ associations governed by Chapter 720 operate under a different maintenance framework: the recorded declaration and the Florida Homeowners’ Association Act generally place maintenance obligations on individual homeowners for their lots, while the association maintains common areas. A vendor hired by an HOA to perform work on a common area who damages an adjacent lot or structure raises similar questions about responsibility, but they are resolved under Chapter 720, the specific declaration language, and general negligence principles, rather than under the condominium‑specific provisions of Chapter 718 discussed in this article.

The master insurance coverage framework — Section 718.111(11)(f) — sets the floor for what the association must insure. Topic 70 in this series addresses the unit owner’s rights when the master insurance claim is underpaid following an insurable event. That article focuses on the insurance-shortfall and special-assessment issues that arise after the carrier underpays; this article addresses who is responsible for the damage in the first instance when the association’s vendor causes it. Both articles apply to condominium associations under Chapter 718 and should be read together by owners dealing with vendor-caused damage that is also subject to an insurance claim.

Topic 55 in this series addresses the inverse scenario: when the association attempts to charge the unit owner for a vendor’s damage through a direct assessment or chargeback — i.e., the association’s affirmative use of the Section 718.111(11)(j)1. carve-out against the owner. This article addresses the affirmative question of how the owner recovers when the association’s vendor causes the damage. Together, Topics 55, 70, and 72 provide a complete framework for unit owners dealing with damage disputes arising from association-directed maintenance and repair work.

FAQ

If the association’s vendor damages my unit, do I have to file a claim with my own HO-6 carrier?

You should notify your HO-6 carrier promptly to preserve your coverage rights, but that does not mean your HO-6 is the only or primary path to recovery. For damage to building components the association is required to insure under Section 718.111(11), the association’s master policy is often the main policy that should respond, while your HO-6 typically addresses interior items and personal property that fall outside the association’s insurance obligations, subject to the actual policy language. The contractor entered your unit under the association’s authority to perform work tied to the association’s maintenance duty under Section 718.113(1), Florida Statutes, so you should also file a detailed written claim with the association, request the contractor’s agreement and certificates of insurance, and ask for the master policy declarations to determine how the loss should be allocated.

Can the association use Section 718.111(11)(j)1. to make me pay for damage caused by its vendor?

In most contractor-fault scenarios, it will be difficult for the association to rely on Section 718.111(11)(j)1 to shift costs to you. That carve-out applies when the damage is caused by a unit owner, the owner’s family, unit occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees; a contractor hired and directed by the association to perform association work does not naturally fit into those categories. If the association invokes Section 718.111(11)(j)1 against you, you should dispute the charge in writing, demand that it identify the specific person it claims caused the damage and which enumerated category that person falls into, and consider enforcement options under Section 718.303 if the association persists.

Does independent contractor status protect the association from liability for vendor-caused damage?

Not necessarily. When a contractor is performing work the association is obligated to perform under Section 718.113(1), and the declaration makes the association responsible for maintaining the relevant common elements, the association’s duty to keep those areas reasonably safe is non-delegable in many circumstances. Florida appellate decisions, including Walters and similar premises-liability cases, hold that a party with a non-delegable duty can be jointly and severally liable for the negligence of its contractor, even if that contractor is labeled “independent.” The association may still argue defenses based on the facts, the declaration, and the policies at issue, but it cannot automatically avoid exposure just by pointing to the contractor label.

What documents should I request from the association after a vendor damages my unit?

At a minimum, request in writing:

• The contractor’s agreement with the association.
• The scope of work or task order describing what the contractor was authorized to do.
• The contractor’s certificate(s) of insurance, with declarations pages showing carriers and limits.
• The association’s master property policy declarations page and any available summary of coverage.

These documents help clarify the association’s maintenance obligations, the contractor’s role, and which policies are in play, and they are often part of the association’s official records that owners have a right to inspect and copy under Section 718.111(12), subject to statutory exceptions. If the association refuses to provide clearly requested records, that refusal can support an enforcement action or at least justify escalation under Section 718.303.

Can I sue the vendor directly in addition to the association?

Yes. You may be able to bring a direct negligence claim against the contractor and, at the same time, assert claims against the association based on its non-delegable duties, its obligations under the declaration, and any negligent hiring, supervision, or failure to maintain. Those claims can proceed in parallel. If your HO-6 carrier pays part of the loss, it may also have subrogation rights against the contractor’s and/or association’s carriers, so prompt documentation and written notice to all involved insurers is important. A Florida attorney who regularly handles condominium cases can help structure and coordinate those multiple recovery paths to avoid inconsistent positions or inadvertent waivers.

Key Terms Defined

Common Elements

All portions of the condominium property other than the unit itself, as defined by the declaration and Section 718.103, Fla. Stat. The association is responsible for maintaining common elements under Section 718.113(1), Fla. Stat. Damage to common elements caused by an insurable event is addressed as a common expense under Section 718.111(11)(j), Fla. Stat.

Owner-Fault Carve-Out

The exception in Section 718.111(11)(j)1., Fla. Stat., that shifts the cost of repairing condominium property from the common expense to the individual unit owner when the damage is caused by the owner, the owner’s family, occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees. This carve-out does not apply when the damage is caused by the association’s own vendor.

Irrevocable Right of Access

The association’s right under Section 718.111(5)(a), Fla. Stat., to enter each unit during reasonable hours when necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of common elements or of portions of a unit the association maintains. Vendors hired by the association to perform maintenance work enter units under this right, making the vendor the association’s agent for that work.

HO-6 Policy

The unit owner’s personal condominium insurance policy, which covers personal property and interior unit items excluded from the association’s master policy. The HO-6 is not the primary recovery source for damage caused by the association’s vendor performing common-element work; that responsibility rests with the association and the master policy.

Master Policy

The association’s property insurance policy, required by Section 718.111(11)(f), Fla. Stat., that provides primary coverage for the condominium property — including all portions of the building in their original condition, as-built authorized improvements, and floor, wall, and ceiling coverings. The master policy is the primary coverage source for insured-event losses to property the association is required to insure.

Under Section 718.113(1), Section 718.111(5)(a), and Section 718.111(11)(j), Florida Statutes, a Florida condominium association that hires a contractor to perform common-element maintenance cannot automatically avoid responsibility for contractor-caused damage by pointing to the contractor’s “independent” status. When the contractor is performing work the association is obligated to perform, and the declaration adopts that maintenance duty, Florida appellate decisions recognize that the association’s duty to maintain common areas safely is non-delegable, which means the association can be jointly and severally liable for the contractor’s negligence in many circumstances.

The owner-fault carve-out in Section 718.111(11)(j)1 is a narrow exception that generally applies only when damage is caused by the unit owner or specified owner-related parties (family, occupants, tenants, guests, or invitees), so attempts to use that carve-out to shift contractor-caused losses to the owner are difficult to reconcile with the statutory text and can often be challenged. In practice, when an association-hired contractor causes damage while performing association-assigned work, the owner will usually have claims against both the contractor and the association, and the ultimate allocation of costs will depend on the interplay of the statutes, the declaration, and the applicable insurance policies.

If the association’s contractor damaged your condominium unit while performing maintenance or repairs, you may have specific rights under Florida law to seek recovery from the association, in addition to any benefits available under your own HO‑6 policy. If the association’s failure to maintain a common element causes damage inside your unit, you may have a claim against the association for breach of the declaration and negligence, in addition to any insurance benefits, and our firm handles these cases for Florida condominium owners. Perez Mayoral, P.A. represents homeowners in Miami-Dade, Tampa, Broward, and throughout Florida in disputes involving vendor-caused damage, association maintenance failures, and improper cost-shifting under Chapter 718. We represent homeowners only. We never represent associations. Contact us at www.pmlawfla.com to discuss your situation.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this article. Florida HOA and condominium law changes frequently and the application of any statute depends on the specific facts and governing documents of your community. Consult a licensed Florida attorney for advice about your individual situation.

Sources

Section 718.111, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.111

Section 718.113, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.113

Section 718.303, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.303

Section 718.115, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.115

Section 718.116, Florida Statutes — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/718.116