Climate Change Risks Are Soaring And So Are Some Condo Insurance Premiums

Janet Oulousian Aronson

Securing the appropriate insurance for their community has always been challenging for condominium board members.  But climate change and inflation are making that task exponentially more difficult.

These problems have become acute in Florida and California, where soaring
disaster claims (hurricanes and the collapse of a condominium tower in Florida and wildfires in California) have led many large insurers to cease issuing new policies in those states while doubling and tripling premium costs for existing policy holders.  Some major carriers have withdrawn from these markets entirely. 

The headlines have been filled with reports of insurance nightmares for owners of single-family homes and condominium owners alike. One recent example: Unable to find insurance in the primary market, a 240-unit California condominium went to the more expensive secondary or surplus lines market.  As a result, the premium for its master insurance policy increased from $47,000 for $50 million in coverage to $600,000 for a $10 million policy.

We haven’t seen comparable problems in New England…. yet.  But we’ve seen glimmers of them. There is no question that the headlines we’ve seen elsewhere are heading our way.  The only question when they will arrive.  What will your board do if your association’s premium doubles, triples or more from one year to the next? 

Before you do anything, you (and your attorney) should review state law and your association’s governing documents to see what they require. You want to be sure that any alternatives you consider meet those requirements.   

There are four ways to cope with rising premium costs:

·       Find another carrier offering a better deal for the coverage you have.  Unlikely, but possible.

·       Increase the master policy deductible.  Definitely worth considering.

·       Explore financing alternatives. There aren’t many and they aren’t ideal, but they may be necessary.

·       Reduce the master policy coverage.  This is never a first choice, but may be a last resort for associations unable to find other feasible options.

Going Bare

Starting with the least desirable solution (reducing coverage), some associations might consider replacing the “all-in” master policy overage that is standard in New England, with “bare walls” coverage that we don’t see much around here anymore. 

All-in policies cover both the common areas and the interior of individual units, including everything attached to them – light fixtures, flooring, plumbing, cabinets and the like.  A bare-walls policy also covers common areas but only the interior shell of individual units – walls, floors and ceilings─ leaving it to owners to insure the structural components of their units. (Neither all-in nor bare-walls policies will insure an owner’s personal belongings.)

There are some obvious problems with bare walls policies, primary among them: The governing documents of most communities and some state laws require associations to insure 100 percent of the replacement value of the community – coverage a bare walls policy would not provide.  Failure to comply with the insurance requirements of the governing documents would potentially put homeowners in default of their mortgages.  It would additionally run afoul of secondary mortgage market rules, which also require 100 percent coverage, making it difficult for owners to sell their units or refinance an existing loan.

Associations can deal with this issue by requiring owners to obtain unit owner policies that fill the coverage gap. Boards can adopt a resolution requiring owners’ insurance, but it would be better to have owners amend the governing documents to establish that requirement instead.   Associations that want to obtain a bare bones master policy would also have to amend their documents to eliminate the 100 percent insurance requirement. 

The amendment process will trigger notice to mortgagees, who may object to the change. Amendments also require the approval of a super majority of unit owners. Boards considering a bare-walls policy should plan to spend a lot of time explaining the move to owners, and should be prepared for the possibility that they won’t approve the change. 

Increase the Master Policy Deductible

This is the most straightforward and probably the most desirable way for most associations to reduce their premium costs.  Increasing the deductible will lower the premium both directly (the higher the deductible, the lower the premium) and indirectly – by reducing the number of small claims the association files.  Increasing the deductible will also increase the insurance liability of owners, and boards should make sure owners understand that risk.

 We suggest that boards amend their documents to specify that owners are responsible for paying their share of the deductible on master policy claims involving their units, and to explicitly require owners to obtain unit owners’ policies that provide the coverage they need.

Shop the Policy

If one insurer is hiking rates it is likely that others are, as well.  But looking around is never a bad idea. Insurance brokers or insurance advisers who specialize in condominium insurance can help boards assess their coverage needs and explore insurance alternatives.  As part of this shopping process, boards should consider what they can do to become more desirable to insurance carriers.  How can you improve the association’s insurance profile?  How can you reduce its insurance risks?  Here are a few ideas.

·       Create a rigorous preventive maintenance plan and follow it. Anything that can bend, warp, chip, buckle, sag, break, short circuit or leak should be on that maintenance list, targeted for regular inspections and immediate attention when repair or replacement is warranted

·       Proactively replace rubber hoses on washing machines and dishwashers.

·       Require owners to install automatic shut-off valves on water heaters to prevent leaks and to install devices that trigger an alarm if the heat in an owner’s unit falls below a specified temperature in the winter. 

·       Make sure smoke and fire alarms and sprinkler systems are working.

·       Keep walkways and parking lots clear of snow and ice in winter to reduce the risk of slip-and-fall accidents

These are just a few suggestions.  You want to look at your community through the eyes of prospective insurers.  Soaring claims and settlement costs are making risk-averse insurers even more risk averse; many will respond favorably if you demonstrate that your association is, too.

Consider Funding Options

The first reaction to an exorbitant premium increase is likely to be: “We can’t afford this!”  The second reaction, after the blood pressure falls, should be: “How can we pay this bill?”  There are a few options to consider:

·       Levy an assessment on owners- never popular but sometimes necessary.

·       Increase common area fees – equally unpopular but (like assessments), sometimes necessary.

·       Obtain a bank loan. This option isn’t widely available, but a few specialty lenders in other areas of the country are offering “insurance premium financing,” allowing associations to spread the cost of their insurance over several months instead of paying the entire bill up front. The collateral for the loan is the insurance policy, which the lender can cancel if the association defaults.  As with any loan, boards should consult with the association’s accountant or financial adviser to review the benefits and risks.   

As boards assess their insurance coverage needs and costs in an increasingly challenging insurance market, they should consider that the biggest risk community associations face is the risk of not having the insurance they need to pay for damages they suffer.  Against that backdrop, a premium that seems unaffordable is likely to be far more affordable than the cost of paying for an inadequately insured catastrophic damage claim.

A partner in the Braintree firm for Marcus, Errico Emmer & Brooks, P.C.,  Janet Aronson concentrates her practice in the representation of condominium and homeowner associations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.  Her practice includes all facets of community association representation, ranging from document review and interpretations, administration and facilitation of association meetings, enforcement of covenants and restrictions and lien enforcement matters.  She can be contacted at jaronson@meeb.com.

 

 

 

 

Municipalities Build Climate Change Resiliency Using Local Wetland Regulations

By Nathaniel Stevens

The Real Estate bar is discovering that coastal as well as inland communities in Massachusetts increasingly are looking to their local wetland permitting

laws and regulations as one place to help build climate change resilience.  This is one more thing to keep in mind during project permitting.

191 municipalities in the Commonwealth currently have their own wetlands protection bylaw or ordinance (collectively, “bylaw”), which is administered by the city’s or town’s conservation commission in conjunction with the state Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40 (the “WPA”). 

Some of these communities already have provisions that address climate change.  Others are contemplating amending their existing bylaws and regulations to do so.  Still others, like the City of Boston, are considering adopting for the first time a local wetland permitting program.

Wetland resource areas, already regulated to protect their ability to mitigate flooding and storm damage as well as to protect surface and groundwater quality, are naturally poised to help mitigate the similar effects of climate change on a community.  To preserve these functions, municipalities are placing a greater emphasis on regulating work in or near wetland resource areas, such as marshes, vegetated wetlands, floodplains, beaches, banks, dunes, rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds.

A municipality can adopt a wetland bylaw under its Home Rule authority as long as the provisions are more stringent than the WPA.  Being more stringent might include protecting additional interests, or functions, beyond the eight protected by the WPA, such as protection of wildlife, natural scenic beauty, or recreation.  It also might mean regulating a greater geographic area than the WPA, such as isolated (not just bordering) vegetated wetlands, areas within 100 feet of water bodies, or vernal pools (even if outside a vegetated wetland).  It also might mean having stricter requirements (or “performance standards”) such as a mitigation ratio of greater than the 1:1 generally required in the WPA and MassDEP’s implementing Wetland Regulations (310 CMR 10.00).  These are but a few of the many ways a wetland bylaw and the regulations promulgated thereunder can be more stringent than the WPA and its regulations.

With sea level rise being one of the most commonly discussed impacts of climate change, it is not surprising that several coastal towns have provisions in their wetlands bylaws to consider this during project review. 

For instance, Duxbury requires the design and construction of projects in the FEMA- designated “A-zone” portion of the 100-year floodplain to take into account sea level rise at a rate of 2.8 feet per 100 years.  Hingham has a similar requirement, but also applies it to projects proposed in the FEMA-defined velocity zone (“V-zone”).  Hingham specifies that a rate of 1 foot per 100 years “or other credible evidence”, such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, be used.  Falmouth has one rate (“at least” 1 foot per 100 years) for work in A-zones and a higher rate (“at least” 2 feet per 100 years) for work in the V-zone.        

As sea levels rise, coastal wetland resource areas are predicted to shift landward.  Scituate requires landward migration of resource areas in response to sea level rise to be incorporated into the design and construction of structures proposed in the coastal floodplain.  The lowest floor of a structure in a FEMA-mapped A-zone must be at least 1 foot above the base elevation, and in the V-zone, the lowest horizontal structural element must be at least 2 feet above the base flood elevation – unless a higher elevation is determined by the Commission.  Falmouth says that any activity within the 10-year floodplain cannot have an adverse effect by impeding the landward migration of other resource areas within this sub-area of the floodplain.

Recognizing that FEMA’s 100-year floodplain mapping can be inaccurate or outdated, many coastal communities allow the coastal floodplain, usually called Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (“LSCSF”), to be defined by the FEMA maps, surge of record, or flood of record, whichever is greater.  Similarly, recognizing that coastal bank function as a barrier to coastal storm flooding, some communities define the top of coastal bank at a higher point than MassDEP would under the WPA.

Inland communities are also using their wetland permitting programs to build climate change resiliency.  The Arlington Conservation Commission recently added to its wetland regulations a new “Climate Change Resilience” section which requires an applicant, “to the extent practicable and applicable as determined solely by the Commission, integrate considerations of adaptation planning into their project to promote climate change resilience so as to protect and promote resource area values into the future.” 

In Arlington, an applicant must address in writing:  1. Design considerations to limit storm and flood damage from extreme weather events; 2. Storm water surface runoff mitigation and reduction of impervious surfaces; 3. Vegetation planting plans to improve climate change resiliency; and 4. Protection of proposed structures to minimize damage from potential climate change impacts.  With the introduction of new terms, the Commission added definitions to its regulations, such as “adaptation”, “extreme weather event”, “impacts of climate change”, and “resilience”, in part because climate change resiliency vocabulary is new to a lot of people.

Many eyes are now on the City of Boston as it considers enacting its first wetland protection ordinance.  Entitled, “Ordinance Protecting Local Wetlands and Promoting Climate Change Adaptation in the City of Boston”, the proposed draft explicitly and comprehensively integrates climate change resiliency measures into a local wetland permitting program. The current draft draws on approaches and definitions of other communities and expands on them.  For instance, LSCSF is defined not as the more common FEMA 100-year floodplain, but the FEMA 500-year floodplain.  “Special Transition Areas” landward of salt marsh, barrier beaches and coastal dunes are created to allow transition of those areas landward, so must be kept in a natural state as much as possible.  Stormwater calculations must be based on “best available measures of precipitation” frequency. Also, the Conservation Commission is directed to consider eight factors when considering a project’s adaptation to potential climate change impacts. 

In conclusion, real estate developers, builders, managers, brokers and their legal counsel should realize that Massachusetts cities and towns are not waiting for the state or federal governments to begin enacting laws to help build climate change resilience in their communities.  They are instead utilizing their own land use control authorities like wetland protection regulations.  

Nate Stevens is a Senior Associate at McGregor & Legere, P.C. in Boston where his practice focuses on land use and environmental law and related litigation.  He is also the Chair of the Town of Arlington Conservation Commission.  He can be contacted by email at NStevens@mcgregorlaw.com.

Home Rule Meets Climate Change: New Wetlands Ordinance in Boston

Nathaniel Stevens

On December 23, 2019, the City of Boston joined the almost two-thirds of the Commonwealth’s 351 municipalities in having more

stringent requirements for work in and near wetlands, waterbodies, and floodplains.  Unlike many of those other municipalities, the explicit purpose of Boston’s wetlands ordinance is to address climate change, through adaptation and building resiliency.

A municipality has the power to enact a wetland ordinance (in a city) or bylaw (in a town) under its Home Rule authority, under the Home Rule Amendment to the state Constitution, as long as the provisions are more stringent than the state Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40  (WPA).  The Mayor of Boston signed this one December 23.

Being more stringent often includes regulating a greater geographic area than the WPA.  Like many other communities, Boston’s new ordinance regulates work proposed in isolated wetlands and vernal pools while treating the 100-foot Buffer Zone as its own wetland resource area. 

Boston in its new ordinance creates some new resource areas reflecting its concerns about climate change, including what are termed Inland and Coastal Flood Resilience Zones.  The Boston Conservation Commission is given the task of delineating them.  

Specifically, the Coastal Flood Resilience Zone, or CFRZ, is “the area of land beyond the current boundary of land subject to coastal storm flowage [100-year flood plain] or land subject to tidal action that the Commission determines has a reasonable probability of becoming subject to future coastal storm flowage or tidal action due to sea level rise (SLR) within approximately the next 50 years.”

The Commission is empowered to delineate the CFRZ on maps published after public hearing and comment.  The Commission can divide the CFRZ into sub-zones with different regulatory requirements. 

Similarly, the Inland Flood Resilience Zone or IFRZ, is “the area of land beyond the current boundary of land subject to flooding [caused by the 1%-chance storm] that the Commission determines has a reasonable probability of flooding as the strength, duration or frequency of precipitation events increase within approximately the next 50 years.”

Likewise, the IFRZ is to be delineated on maps published by the Commission and shall be consistent with other climate change planning documents used by other City officials.

The Commission also is given the authority to designate “Extended Riverfront Areas”, which enlarges to 200 feet the otherwise 25-foot wide Riverfront Area; the WPA sets a 25-foot wide Riverfront Area for several specified large cities and densely developed areas.

Procedurally, the Commission must “explicitly consider climate change resilience and impacts” in its decision to approve or deny a permit, by measuring the potential adverse impacts to wetland resource areas both as they currently exist and as are reasonably expected to exist “based on the best available data on the projected impacts of climate change.” 

The Commission is cautioned, however, not to use its newfound authority “to prevent beneficial projects whose primary purpose is protection of resource areas and reduction of risk from coastal flooding, inland flooding, extreme weather, sea level rise and other adverse impacts of climate change.”  The Commission can enact procedures to advance and expedite such projects.

Applicants before the Commission are to integrate climate change and adaptation planning considerations into their project to promote climate change resilience and promote resource area values.  Considerations include sea level rise, increased heat waves, extreme precipitation events, stormwater runoff, changing precipitation patterns and changes in coastal and stormwater flooding.   

Within the climate change planning considerations, the Commission may, through regulations or guidelines, require an applicant to address climate equity and environmental justice.

All eyes now turn from the City Council and Mayor to the Conservation Commission to see how it implements its many duties and opportunities under this wetlands protection ordinance, in new maps and regulations as well as permit-by-permit.

Boston’s new “Wetlands Protection and Climate Adaptation” ordinance can be found here in Section 7-1.4 of Chapter VII of the City’s Ordinances.  Here’s a link to the Mayor’s page concerning its enactment:  https://www.boston.gov/news/mayor-walsh-signs-local-wetland-ordinance

A member of the Association’s environmental law section, Nathaniel Stevens practices with the Boston firm of McGregor & Legere, P.C.  He represents clients with environmental issues including permitting, development, contamination, transactions, conservation, real estate restrictions, underground tanks, water supply, water pollution, subdivision control, tidelands licensing, Boston and state zoning, coastal and inland wetlands, stormwater, air pollution, and energy facility siting.  Nathaniel can be contacted by email at nstevens@mcgregorlaw.com

Municipalities Use Local Regulations to Address Climate Change

by Nathaniel Stevens, Esq. 

 Coastal as well as inland communities in Massachusetts increasingly are looking to their local wetland permitting laws and regulations as one place to help build climate change resilience. 

About half of the 351 municipalities in the Commonwealth currently have their own wetlands protection bylaw or ordinance

(collectively, “bylaw”), which is administered by the city’s or town’s conservation commission in conjunction with the state Wetlands Protection Act (the “WPA”). 

Some of these communities already have provisions that address climate change.  Others are contemplating amending their existing bylaws and regulations to do so.  Still others, like the City of Boston, are considering adopting for the first time a local wetland permitting program.

Wetland resource areas, already regulated to protect their ability to mitigate flooding and storm damage as well as to protect surface and groundwater quality, are naturally poised to help mitigate the similar effects of climate change on a community.  To preserve these functions, municipalities are placing a greater emphasis on regulating work in or near wetland resource areas, such as marshes, vegetated wetlands, floodplains, beaches, banks, dunes, rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds.

A municipality can adopt a wetland bylaw under its Home Rule authority as long as the provisions are more stringent than the WPA.  Being more stringent might include protecting additional interests, or functions, beyond the eight protected by the WPA, such as protection of wildlife, natural scenic beauty, or recreation.  It also might mean regulating a greater geographic area than the Act, such as isolated (not just bordering) vegetated wetlands, areas within 100 feet of water bodies, or vernal pools (even if outside a vegetated wetland).  It also might mean having stricter requirements (or “performance standards”) such as a mitigation ratio of greater than the 1:1 generally required in the WPA and MassDEP’s implementing Wetland Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). 

These are but a few of the myriad of ways a wetland bylaw and the regulations promulgated thereunder can be more stringent than the WPA and its regulations.

With sea level rise being one of the most commonly discussed impacts of climate change, it is not surprising that several coastal towns have provisions in their wetlands bylaws to consider this during project review.

 

For instance, Duxbury requires the design and construction of projects in the FEMA- designated “A-zone” portion of the 100-year floodplain to take into account sea level rise at a rate of 2.8 feet per 100 years.  Hingham has a similar requirement, but also applies it to projects proposed in the velocity zone (“V-zone”).  Hingham specifies that a rate of 1 foot per 100 years “or other credible evidence” such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be used.  Falmouth has one rate (“at least” 1 foot per 100 years) for work in AE-zones and a higher rate (“at least” 2 feet per 100 years) for work in the VE-zone.

As sea levels rise, coastal wetland resource areas are predicted to shift landward.  Scituate requires landward migration of resource areas in response to sea level rise to be incorporated into the design and construction of structures proposed in the coastal floodplain.  The lowest floor of a structure in a FEMA-mapped AE-zone must be at least 1 foot above the base elevation, and the lowest horizontal structural element must be at least 2 feet above the base flood elevation – unless a higher elevation is determined by the Commission.  Falmouth says that any activity within the 10-year floodplain cannot have an adverse effect by impeding the landward migration of other resource areas within this sub-area of the floodplain.

Recognizing that FEMA’s 100-year floodplain mapping can be inaccurate or outdated, many coastal communities allow the coastal floodplain, usually called Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (“LSCSF”), to be defined by the FEMA maps, surge of record, or flood of record, whichever is greater.   Similarly, recognizing that coastal bank function as a barrier to coastal storm flooding, some communities define the top of coastal bank at a higher point than MassDEP would under the WPA.

Inland communities are also using their wetland permitting programs to build climate change resiliency.  The Arlington Conservation Commission recently added to its wetland regulations a new “Climate Change Resilience” section which requires an applicant, “to the extent practicable and applicable as determined solely by the Commission, integrate considerations of adaptation planning into their project to promote climate change resilience so as to protect and promote resource area values into the future.” 

An applicant must address in a narrative:  1. Design considerations to limit storm and flood damage from extreme weather events; 2. Storm water surface runoff mitigation and reduction of impervious surfaces; 3. Vegetation planting plans to improve climate change resiliency; and 4. Protection of proposed structures to minimize damage from potential climate change impacts.  With the introduction of new terms, the Commission added the definitions to its regulations, such as “adaptation”, “extreme weather event”, “impacts of climate change”, and “resilience.”

Many eyes are now on the City of Boston as it considers enacting its first wetland protection ordinance.  Entitled, “Ordinance Protecting Local Wetlands and Promoting Climate Change Adaptation in the City of Boston”, the proposed draft explicitly and comprehensively integrates climate change resiliency measures into a local wetland permitting program. The current draft draws on approaches and definitions of other communities and expands on them.  For instance, LSCSF is defined not as the more common FEMA 100-year floodplain, but the FEMA 500-year floodplain.  “Special Transition Areas” landward of salt marsh, barrier beaches and coastal dunes are created to allow transition of those areas landward, so must be kept in a natural state as much as possible.  Stormwater calculations must be based on “best available measures of precipitation” frequency. Also, the Conservation Commission is directed to consider eight factors when considering a project’s adaptation to potential climate change impacts. 

In conclusion, Massachusetts cities and towns are not waiting for the state or federal governments to begin enacting laws to help build climate change resilience in their communities, but are turning to their own wetland regulations. 

Nathaniel Stevens is a Senior Associate at McGregor & Legere, P.C. in Boston where his practice focuses on land use and environmental law and related litigation.  He is also the Chair of the Town of Arlington Conservation Commission.

Is Your Association Climate Ready?

By Katherine Brady

Extreme temperatures, precipitation, and storms along with rising sea levels are major climate risk factors with which many Boston associations will be forced to contend in the upcoming years and

decades. Associations must learn to assess the risks of climate change, and the extreme weather events that are a byproduct, and develop strategies to prepare their properties accordingly. The strategies for addressing these challenges can be segmented into three parts: neighborhood planning, climate-ready and resilient buildings, and emergency preparedness.

STRATEGIES

Neighborhood Planning

The climate risks faced are in many ways too large for one association or property owner to face alone; they demand community solutions. In January, the City of Boston launched Climate Ready Downtown and North End and held its first community meeting on March 12th to further study the impact on the area and discuss protective measures. The community planning process is an opportunity to provide feedback about potential solutions and priorities, including elevated pathways, adaptive buildings, stormwater gardens, stepped edges, flood walls, breakwaters and coastal marsh. The next public session will likely be in May or June. At risk associations and property owners should participate in neighborhood planning by attending meetings, providing input on proposed solutions (which can be done by responding to online surveys or e-mail, if you cannot attend a meeting in person), or becoming a neighborhood leader. No one knows the neighborhood better than the people who live there and how one proposal versus another could impact day-to-day living. The City anticipates that, by the end of the year, it will release a final report with draft designs and an implementation plan for the City and its partners in downtown Boston.

Climate Ready Boston is not limited to downtown. The City expects to kick off Climate Ready Dorchester this summer and there is ongoing planning about the future of Moakley Park in South Boston. There are also planning documents available for Climate Ready Charlestown and East Boston.

Climate-Ready and Resilient Buildings.

Associations can also begin to incorporate climate-ready strategies into their building maintenance plans. There are some basic techniques that associations can explore to see if they make sense for their own properties.

If there is a planned or upcoming renovation, associations can inquire about flood-resistant materials and additional efficiency measures to maintain a high-performance building envelope. For associations comprised of older buildings it may make sense to increase the size of downspouts and gutters to handle increased precipitation loads. Any size building can explore whether the roofing materials adequately support cooling, harness as much energy as possible for the building and support water diversion in the event of extreme heat or storms.

Associations should also research flood-proofing and flood resiliency techniques if they are in areas particularly flood-prone or at flood-risk. Wet flood proofing prepares existing buildings to allow floodwaters to pass through them -- flood vents are an example. Elevating critical mechanical equipment can be a component wet flood-proofing. Dry flood proofing makes existing buildings weather tight so flood waters cannot pass through. This can be done through wall reinforcements and sealants. Buildings may also benefit from backwater preventers, which block wastewater from flowing into the home in the event rising water causes sewers to overflow. Deploying flood barriers or installing retractable flood gates, while more common for large commercial spaces, may nonetheless be appropriate depending on a buildings’ location.

If there are any questions about whether climate-ready or flood-proofing work at your association will constitute a repair or improvement, ask an attorney. While the selection of climate resilient materials or methods for a project will not likely change the nature of the underlying project (repair vs. improvement), the installation of a new system (i.e. a new green/living roof, solar panels, etc.) may constitute an improvement requiring unit owner vote or other compliance with expenditure controls in your governing documents.

One initiative for climate-readiness identified by the City of Boston is to establish a program and resources for property owners to audit their own climate-readiness. MTM will monitor this initiative’s progress and any useful output or tools for associations that are developed.

Extreme Weather Preparedness.

Finally, there are strategies and concrete steps that an association can take to prepare for discrete extreme weather events. Here is a basic action list to get you started:

▪ Maintain up-to-date owner contact information.

▪ Streamline the distribution of emergency information and receipt of damage reports.

▪ Create a protocol for evacuation and sheltering in place.

▪ Send seasonally appropriate unit maintenance reminders.

▪ Verify the association has adequate insurance coverage.

▪ Recommend or require unit owners to maintain appropriate insurance.

▪ Keep on-site physical records in a safe location and back-up electronically.

▪ Evaluate and identify alternate security and power needs and sources.

▪ Identify special population risks (elderly or infirm/accessibility needs/limited English proficiency/households with service animals) and services that you can access in the event of an emergency.

▪ Stock emergency supplies.

▪ Train staff on emergency preparedness, management and response.

▪ Know external and government agencies that may be able to assist before, during or after an extreme weather event: Boston Fire, Boston Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA); the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and the Red Cross.

If an extreme weather event is approaching do not forget to:

▪ Remove or secure common area patio furniture, garbage cans, awnings and other loose ground items that could be damaged or become a projectile.

▪ Check that generators, alarms and other critical services are operable.

▪ Confirm that outdoor equipment such as air conditioners, antennas, signs and other mounted equipment are secure.

▪ Inspect and clear downspouts, drains and gutters.

Should you have any questions regarding climate-ready planning in Boston please do not hesitate to contact Kate Brady at 617-934-4550 or by email at kbrady@lawmtm.com.

Mitigating Risk to Minimize Loss in the Event of a Catastrophe (Video)

Dealing with a Natural Disaster  Flood Preparedness Checklist

  Hurricane Preparedness Checklist

Given the recent weather-related catastrophes, how can property owners mitigate or reduce risk to minimize loss and protect their balance sheets? According to the Environmental Defense Fund, this year the Atlantic basin alone had 8 consecutive storms develop - the first time in 124 years - with catastrophic effects. The increased intensity of these storms means increased costs of recovery with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria estimated to cost $150-$200 billion - an enormous blow to the economy and taxpayers. 

Our guest speakers are Christine Carr, Area Senior Vice President of Arthur J. Gallagher's Boston office, and Sam Milton, Principal of Climate Resources Group in Arlington.

Christine has more than 30 years of experience in the insurance industry, the last 20 years in broking Global Property and Casualty insurance placements for public and private organizations in a variety of industries.

Sam is a certified climate vulnerability preparedness practitioner, advising municipalities on climate action plans and developing strategies for municipal and commercial climate change mitigation and adaptation.