The Twin Rivers Homeowners Assocation board of directors held a forum Wednesday for residents to learn about the proposed tort immunity clause to the community’s bylaws.
By: T.J. Furman
EAST WINDSOR Residents asked questions and officials provided answers Wednesday night as the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association board of directors held a forum to discuss a proposed change to its rules that would prohibit some lawsuits from being filed against the association.
The question-and-answer session, which lasted slightly over an hour, drew more than 60 people to the Community Room. Several audience members were forced to stand in the small foyer just outside the room.
The board of directors has proposed a tort immunity clause as an amendment to Twin Rivers’ bylaws that would prevent residents and guests of the community from suing the homeowners association for slip-and-fall accidents that occur on common grounds maintained by the association. The amendment would not apply in cases where the association is grossly, wantonly or deliberately negligent.
The board is seeking the amendment as a way of reducing insurance payments that have skyrocketed in the past two years because of 24 claims filed 14 from slip-and-fall accidents from 1997 to 2001. In 2000, Twin Rivers paid $5,000 for its insurance coverage. This year, after being forced to find a new carrier in 2001, it paid $154,000.
Board President Scott Pohl said the insurance company expects that number to reach between $225,000 and $250,000 in 2003. Mr. Pohl said conversations with similar communities that have passed a tort immunity clause indicate Twin Rivers could save 20 percent on its premiums if the residents approve it. Mr. Pohl said the association’s insurance provider, National Indemnity Co. of Nebraska, suggested the clause be added to the bylaws.
Mr. Pohl also cast blame for the rising costs on an increasingly litigious society.
"An epidemic of ‘Let’s sue the trust and get rich’ has picked up in the last few years," Mr. Pohl said after describing several suits he considered frivolous, but cost the association money to settle.
More than a dozen of the residents in attendance stepped up to the microphone to ask questions and make statements Wednesday. Many of them voiced support for the idea, but others did not.
Pete Montella of Danbury Court took the board to task for not properly maintaining sidewalks, curbs and parking lots in Twin Rivers. He suggested that a lack of maintenance is what has left the association open to a glut of lawsuits in recent years.
"You guys cut the grass great, you plow the snow great, but you don’t take care of this place," Mr. Montella said. "It’s becoming a dump.
"We’re still going to be open to these suits until you get ahead of these people," he added.
Mr. Montella’s remarks were met with applause from several members of the audience.
The reference to Twin Rivers as a dump was met with a stern rebuttal from Mr. Pohl and a brief shouting match erupted between the two men after Mr. Montella returned to his seat.
Later, Mr. Pohl pointed to property values that have risen steadily in the past six years as evidence to counter Mr. Montella’s claim.
"Through the hard work of the board, property values have gone up," Mr. Pohl said shortly before adjourning the meeting. "I think if you ride around this community, I think it looks pretty damn good."
Al Wally of Overton Road, a frequent critic of the board, suggested more money should be spent on preventive maintenance rather than passing the tort immunity clause. He also questioned whether the insurance company may cancel the policy because of the inclusion of guests of Twin Rivers residents a part of the clause Mr. Wally claims contradicts state law.
"If (the insurance company has) been put on notice as to what the (clause) states, it would be hard for them to break it off at a later point," board attorney Mark Shane responded.
The possibility of spending more money for maintenance as a way to prevent some lawsuits has been considered by the board, but has been dismissed as too expensive.
"There are 40 miles of sidewalks and paths for us to take care of," said Robert Hudak, budget committee chairman. "We always try to strike a balance between what we pay in fees and what services we can do in this community."
He said he would prefer to repair every sidewalk and parking lot in Twin Rivers at one time, but that the price would be too much to bear.
"If I were to hand you the bill for such a thing you’d be in here asking for my head," Mr. Hudak said. After defending the community against Mr. Montella’s earlier remarks, he drew applause from the crowd as well.
The referendum on the tort immunity clause is scheduled for a meeting Oct. 31 at 8 p.m. in the Community Room. Ballots for residents to vote through the mail will be sent out earlier that month.
According to homeowners association administrator Jennifer Ward, a difference between the state law and Twin Rivers’ bylaws will require a stricter measure for the amendment to pass. Twin Rivers requires amendments be approved by a two-thirds vote on a system weighted by property value. State law requires two-thirds of the property owners to approve for a tort immunity clause to take affect. Therefore, both standards will apply to the Oct. 31 referendum two-thirds of the owners will have to approve and two-thirds of the property value of Twin Rivers will have to approve in order for the clause to pass.