One master association. Multiple sub-associations. One program has to make sense across all of them.

A master-planned community's declaration typically assigns specific maintenance and liability responsibilities to the master association and different ones to each sub-association. Placing one umbrella policy without mapping which layer owns which exposure leaves gaps at the seams, especially around shared amenity centers and private infrastructure.

We map the declaration's allocation of responsibility before placing coverage, not after a claim exposes the gap.

We structure the master association's and each sub-association's coverage to mirror the declaration's actual allocation of maintenance and liability responsibility, so a claim at a shared amenity resolves against a known answer.

Clubhouses, pools, private roadways, and large-scale drainage or irrigation infrastructure in a master-planned community often carry replacement costs well above what a standard per-unit valuation formula assumes. Underinsurance on shared infrastructure becomes the master association's problem at claim time, allocated back to every sub-association through a special assessment.

We value shared infrastructure independently, not as a rounding error inside a per-door calculation.

We obtain independent replacement-cost valuation on major shared amenities and infrastructure, so the master association's property coverage reflects actual exposure rather than a per-door estimate.

Sub-association boards often buy umbrella limits independently, sized to their own door count. The master association buys its own. Nobody sizes the excess tower against the community's real severity driver, which is a serious injury at a shared amenity that pulls the master and one or more sub-associations into the same suit. A general liability policy typically carries the statutory floor of $1M per occurrence, and its defense costs sit outside that limit, but a single amenity claim in a large master-planned community can run well past a primary layer once multiple entities are named.

Uncoordinated umbrellas also create attachment-point mismatches, where one entity has excess coverage sitting above a primary limit that a co-defendant entity does not share, so the tower does not respond uniformly across the community.

We size the umbrella and excess layers against the whole community's severity exposure, then allocate that tower across the master and sub-associations so every named entity attaches at the same point. Typical master-planned excess programs land in the $10M-$50M range depending on amenity profile and door count, though these are illustrative bands, not a quote for any specific community.

A master-planned community runs several boards at once, the master association plus each sub-association, and each one makes governance decisions that can draw a claim. When D&O is placed separately at each layer, a dispute that crosses layers, such as a contested allocation of a special assessment or an amenity-access decision, can leave one board's directors defended and another's exposed. Fannie Mae's Selling Guide addresses association liability at B7-4-01 and the fidelity/crime requirement at B7-4-02, but neither sets the D&O structure a multi-board community actually needs.

Volunteer master-association directors are frequently sued alongside sub-association directors for the same decision, and inconsistent D&O terms across the boards mean their defense hinges on which policy happens to respond first.

We place D&O so the master and each sub-association carry consistent terms, defense provisions, and definitions of who counts as an insured person, so a cross-layer governance dispute does not turn on which board's policy answers. Where the community's structure allows, we coordinate the boards under a single specialty program rather than a patchwork of unrelated placements.