Washington · Townhome & PUD
Washington Townhome & PUD Insurance
A townhome & pud community in Washington sits at the intersection of two coverage questions. The first is structural to the association type: coverage architecture turns on whether the building is insured per structure or under one blanket limit, and on how cleanly the shared party wall is allocated between adjoining owners. The second is jurisdictional: Washington's statute, its lender-warrantability climate, and its market conditions shape how that program has to be sized, documented, and placed. This page covers both, and how they meet.
The coverage architecture
What drives a townhome & pud master policy
Townhome and planned-unit-development programs sit in a different structural category than condo master policies because ownership usually runs to the ground beneath the unit rather than to an airspace boundary inside a larger building. That changes the first architecture question from valuation basis to insuring structure: does the association carry a single blanket property limit across every building in the community, or does each building (or each unit) get insured individually. A blanket limit spreads risk and simplifies claims administration, but it needs periodic reconciliation against actual replacement cost as the community adds buildings or as construction costs move, or the aggregate limit quietly falls behind total exposure.
The party wall or shared wall between attached townhome units is the exposure a detached single-family HOA never has to think about and a high-rise condo handles completely differently, because a townhome party wall sits inside one structure shared by two separately owned units rather than inside a single building owned entirely by the association. Governing documents typically assign the association responsibility for the party wall and the exterior structure while leaving unit interiors to the owner, similar in spirit to a condo's bare-walls basis but built around attached, ground-up construction instead of a stacked building. A fire or water loss that starts in one unit and crosses the party wall creates a subrogation and cost-allocation question between the association's policy, the affected owner's HO-6 or landlord policy, and the neighboring owner's policy, and that allocation should be worked out in the governing documents and the insurance program together, not improvised after a claim.
PUD common areas, private streets, retention ponds, entry monuments, community mailboxes, and small shared amenities, carry general liability and property exposure similar in kind to a single-family HOA's amenity risk, but layered on top of the attached-structure property questions above. Directors and officers coverage and a fidelity bond round out the program the same way they do for any association, sized to the community's reserves and monthly assessment volume.
- •Party-wall and shared-wall fire or water loss crossing between two separately owned attached units
- •Blanket versus per-building or per-unit property valuation falling out of sync with actual replacement cost as the community grows
- •PUD common-area and private-street liability (retention ponds, entry monuments, shared walkways)
- •Ambiguity in governing documents over which party (association, owner, or neighboring owner) is responsible for a party-wall loss
- •Directors and officers liability for the volunteer board
- •Fidelity/crime bond sized to reserves and monthly assessment volume
Washington statutory backdrop
How Washington law shapes the program
For communities created on or after July 1, 2018, the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, at RCW 64.90.470, requires the association to maintain property insurance on the common elements and, in most communities, the units, in a total amount, after deductibles, of not less than 80 percent of the actual cash value of the insured property at the time the insurance is purchased and at each renewal date. The same section also requires commercial general liability coverage and, distinctively, fidelity insurance, though the statute names fidelity as a required line without prescribing a dollar formula for it.
For condominiums created between July 1, 1990 and July 1, 2018, the older Condominium Act, at RCW 64.34.352, sets a parallel property standard: not less than 80 percent of actual cash value, exclusive of land, excavations, and foundations, plus liability coverage. That older act does not carry the WUCIOA fidelity requirement, so the fidelity conversation depends on which statute governs the building.
The key practitioner point is that both floors are expressed as 80 percent of actual cash value, which is below the 100 percent replacement-cost standard the Fannie Mae Selling Guide (section B7-3) requires for a conventional loan to be warrantable. A Washington association can satisfy its governing statute and still fail a lender insurance review, so size the property program to replacement cost and the lender bar, and confirm the coverage is written on replacement cost rather than actual cash value.
For the full Washington picture, including reserve and inspection requirements and market commentary, see the Washington state page. For how townhome & pud coverage is built regardless of state, see the Townhome & PUD practice page.