Can the condo ban my personal trainer and insist that everyone use one company?

Ryan Poliakoff
| Special to the Palm Beach Post

Live in a home governed by a condominium, cooperative or homeowners association? Have questions about what they can and can’t do? Ryan PoliakoffBoca Raton-based attorney and author, has answers.

Question: Our HOA has stated that we can only use a trainer affiliated with the company of their choice. My wife uses a trainer who worked for a previous company. She enters into a contract directly through the trainer and wishes to continue her training with this person.

The management company threatened to have this individual removed from the property if my wife had him as a guest to train her. He is on our guest list and he has never done anything that would warrant a ban on our development. This appears to be a violation of my wife’s rights.

Is the HOA allowed to choose my wife’s friends or a vendor she uses that does not violate the physical aesthetic of our property? Signed, WB

Dear WB,,

I think it is unlikely that this issue will be addressed in your statement of commitments. Instead, the association presumably relies on its right to adopt rules governing the use of common areas.

If this right exists (which it likely does), then the question becomes whether the association has adopted a “reasonable” rule. Does the association address a legitimate concern of the association and is the rule directly related to that concern? I can see some legitimate association concerns regarding vendors: if this person trains you in an association common area using association equipment, there is a risk of liability, and the association could therefore reasonably want to ensure that the trainer is properly insured or has signed the appropriate waivers and indemnification agreements; and it could be that the company they chose was properly vetted in this regard.

You refer to this person as a guest, but your wife is paying them – she is not actually a guest in the traditional sense, and I assume she is not working for you on your property, but rather in the gym or on the tennis court. , or another association zone. So this is not a clear situation where you might invite a social guest to exercise with you, but rather a business transaction taking place on the HOA property.

That said, I can also think of reasons why the association’s concerns might not be legitimate, such as if one or more board members had a personal relationship with the vendor they chose and wanted bring them a benefit by ensuring that they have no competition. It really depends on the facts of the specific situation.

I think your best argument that the rule is unreasonable might be that the association’s legitimate concern (e.g., relating to liability) can be easily addressed with rules that would allow any vendor to use the facilities (e.g. example requiring that trainers be insured, or requiring them to compensate the association for damage caused to its properties); and that there is no direct relationship between mandating a single supplier and avoiding liability.

Ultimately, there’s no way to know for sure how this will play out in court, but the first step is to see if you can understand exactly why only one company is allowed to train people at the facility and work from there.

My condo board refuses to buy windstorm insurance, what now?

Question: My condominium association is entirely controlled by a board made up of employees of the rental company that owns 66% of the units.

For the past two years this board has refused to include wind storm coverage on our units. Not all owners were aware of this significant change to their insurance. Back then, they didn’t hold meetings and there were no minutes for the owners to read. We have no recourse to restore coverage since we are still in the minority.

Therefore, all community units are susceptible to wind and hail events. Mortgage companies will not approve loans on these properties. We’re stuck! Is there a legal requirement that our association maintain windstorm coverage? Signed, British Columbia

Dear B.C.,

In my opinion, the association is obliged to take out windstorm insurance. There is no doubt that section 718.111, Fla. Stat. requires the association to maintain adequate property insurance to protect the condominium property as originally installed, less certain specific personal items.

The association is also required to carry out all reconstruction work after a disaster. The law does not specify the exact types of property insurance that are required, but failure to protect property against windstorms in Florida is an important exclusion; and I wouldn’t want to be one of those board members when a storm hits and they are sued personally for their reckless decision not to insure the property.

I would be concerned that this is one of the rare cases where this could result in personal liability on their part.

But if they don’t care, your best bet would be to join the other owners, hire a lawyer, and ask a judge to rule that the law actually requires the association to carry windstorm insurance . I think that’s probably a winning argument.

Ryan Poliakoff, partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of “New Neighborhoods — The Consumer’s Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living.” Send your questions by email to [email protected]. Be sure to include your location.