Here is a concise summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 16F-H1616001-BFS.

**Case Overview**
**Petitioner:** Robert A. White (Owner of Unit 41)
**Respondent:** Aspen Shadows Condominium Association
**Hearing Date:** March 24, 2016
**Decision Date:** April 1, 2016 (Certified Final May 9, 2016)

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding insurance coverage, common element maintenance, noise enforcement, and document delivery,.

**Key Issues and Arguments**

**1. Insurance Coverage (Water Damage)**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1253 and CC&R Article 8.1 by denying coverage for water damage caused by a leak from the unit above (Unit 42).
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner claimed the Association withdrew the claim, denying him protection. The Respondent argued it submitted the claim to Farmers Insurance, but the carrier denied it because the damage resulted from a "long-term" slow leak, a policy exclusion,.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Association maintained the required insurance. The insurer's denial based on standard exclusions for maintenance issues (like slow leaks) did not constitute a violation by the Association,.

**2. Grinder Pump Liability**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner sought reimbursement for a grinder pump ($1,697.50) serving his unit, alleging it was damaged by storm runoff due to an improper diversion wall (a common element).
* **Arguments:** The Respondent contended the pump is a "Limited Common Element" serving only Unit 41. Evidence suggested the pump was previously functional and damage resulted from a dislodged lid allowing debris inside.
* **Finding:** The pump is a Limited Common Element. Under the CC&Rs, the Association may assess repair costs for such elements to the specific unit owner benefiting from them. The Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective or that the Association was liable for the replacement.

**3. Hard Floor Noise Violation**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the unit above (Unit 42) had prohibited hard flooring, violating CC&R Article 4.23, and the Association failed to enforce the rule.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent noted the flooring was installed in 2008 (six years prior to the Petitioner's purchase) and argued the Petitioner assumed the risk of noise,.
* **Finding:** The CC&Rs contain a specific provision (Section 13.20) where owners assume the risk of noise and vibrations from adjacent units,. The Petitioner failed to establish the Association was liable for the potential violation or the resulting noise.

**4. Document Delivery**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner claimed the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by failing to provide paper copies of the CC&Rs and Bylaws before escrow closed.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent argued compliance by providing documents in electronic format, which the Petitioner refused to accept.
* **Finding:** A.R.S. § 33-1260 permits delivery in "either paper or electronic format". The Respondent’s use of electronic delivery was legal, and the Petitioner’s refusal to accept that format did not make the Association's actions a violation.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or CC&Rs,. The petition was **dismissed**, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 9, 2016.