The primacy rule, and the one deductible clause that exists

“(4)(a) A unit owner's property insurance policy covering betterments and improvements shall be primary for that unit owner's betterments and improvements to the extent of the value of the betterments and improvements. The association property insurance policy shall remain primary with respect to common elements, structural elements and components, and fixtures and improvements of the condominium units that are not classified as betterments and improvements to include damages caused by the event giving rise to an insurance claim.”

“(5) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require the association to insure a unit owner's individual liability except as set forth in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the association from pursuing any deductible or out-of-pocket expenses not covered by the association's insurance policies from the negligent unit owner.”

Paragraph (5) is the only deductible-recovery language in the section, and it is narrow: it reaches “the negligent unit owner.” It is not a general authority to allocate a named-storm deductible across the ownership. That allocation, if it exists at all, lives in the declaration.

The two provisions that bite after a storm

Notice when coverage is not maintained.

“B. If the insurance described in Subsection A of this Section is not maintained, the association promptly shall cause notice of that fact to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by United States mail to all unit owners.”

Thirty days before cancellation, to three sets of people.

“F. … The insurance may not be canceled until thirty days after notice of the proposed cancellation has been mailed to the association, each unit owner and each mortgagee to whom certificates of insurance have been issued.”

Subsection (F) also gives any unit owner or mortgagee a route to certificates or memoranda of insurance from the carrier — a records right that sits outside the association's own records statute, which is worth knowing when a board declines to produce the policy.

Note how subsection (F)'s thirty days interacts with the broader change coming from the Insurance Code: Act 182 of 2025 doubles the statutory cancellation and nonrenewal notice on property and casualty policies from thirty days to sixty, effective July 1, 2026, and Act 848 of 2026 makes the matching change in the Standard Fire Policy form. The Condominium Act's own thirty-day figure was not amended to match.

The rebuild duty, and the sentence that funds special assessments

“G. Any portion of the condominium damaged or destroyed shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the association unless (1) the condominium is terminated, (2) repair or replacement would be illegal under any state or local health or safety statute or ordinance, or (3) eighty percent, or such other percentage provided in the declaration, of the unit owners vote not to rebuild. The cost of repair or replacement in excess of insurance proceeds and reserves is a common expense.”

Three points, in descending order of how often they matter.

The final sentence is the statutory basis for a post-storm special assessment in a Louisiana condominium, and it is uncapped. Whatever the shortfall between proceeds plus reserves and the cost of repair is, it is a common expense.

Exception (2) is an off-ramp that connects to the building-safety picture: repair that “would be illegal under any state or local health or safety statute or ordinance” is excused. A local condemnation or an unsafe-occupancy order interacts with the rebuild duty directly.

Exception (3) requires eighty percent of the unit owners to vote not to rebuild — a high bar, and one measured against the declaration's percentage if it differs.

How the shortfall gets litigated in practice

Through duelling experts, and the Fourth Circuit has been supervising exactly that this year. In Davidson v. Lake Marina Tower Condominium Association, a unit occupant blamed the association for condensation damage to exterior windows, a sliding glass balcony door and interior walls and floor, attributing it to a thermal barrier broken by Hurricane Ida's winds; the association's expert and the occupant's own property insurer's expert both attributed it to an unvented clothes dryer installed in the unit.

The Fourth Circuit granted supervisory writs twice, in No. 2026-C-0298 (April 30, 2026) and No. 2026-C-0483 (July 21, 2026), and both times on evidence procedure only. Its own words on the first: “This Court, thus, decided the prior writ based solely on procedural grounds.” And on the second: “Accordingly, we find the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the Reports.”

Nothing has been decided about who is responsible for exterior windows in that building or any other. The case is remanded and live. We include it because the shape of the fight is the point: after a named storm the recurring Louisiana condominium dispute is whether envelope damage is storm damage on the association's policy or unit-caused damage on the owner's, and it is resolved on expert evidence rather than on the statute.³

What a board can do

• Get the actual-cash-value and replacement-cost figures separately. The statute measures one; rebuilding costs the other.
• Model the deductible into the eighty-percent test. The statute measures “after application of any deductibles.”
• Read the declaration for deductible allocation. Paragraph (C)(5) reaches only a negligent owner; everything else is a documents question.
• Have the subsection (B) notice drafted. If coverage lapses, notice to all owners is prompt and mandatory.

What to watch next

The Louisiana State Law Institute's completed revision of the Condominium Act, which it told the Legislature in April 2026 it hopes to recommend in the 2027 Regular Session. This section — an eighty-percent actual-cash-value floor drafted in 1979 and last adjusted in 2019 — is among the most obvious candidates for change in it.