Logo Grande is a large complex of roughly 1300 units with as many as 3000 residents in Miami. Each if the three entrances to the community has a guard house and there is a five foot wall around the entire perimeter. The community was promoted as a secure community and the governing documents of the community provide that the Association is obligated to provide security for the residents.

Victoria Valle frequently visited Carmen Martin's home at Lago Grande with her children. Frank Valle, Victoria Valle's estranged husband, frequently came to the complex to pick up the children. At one point, Mrs. Martin had quarreled with Frank Valle and, after the quarrel, went to the gate house and specifically told the guards to call her if Frank Valle showed up again. One evening, Frank Valle walked through the north entrance without stopping at the gate house and without being stopped by the guard. He walked through the middle of the entranceway, walked into Carmen Martin's home and shot both his wife, Victoria, and Carmen Martin. Victoria Valle died from her wounds.

The Estate of Victoria Valle and her minor children sued the Lago Grande Homeowners Association and Centurion Protective Services alleging that Lago Grande and Centurion breached their obligation to the Valles to provide them with reasonable security. The jury found the security company, the association's management company and the homeowners association negligent and entered a judgment against them totaling more than 3 million dollars. Following the jury's verdict, the trial court judge entered an order in favor of the defendants and held that they should not be held liable since it was not demonstrated by the plaintiffs that the association or its management company were aware of any prior similar instances of violence. The trial court based its decision upon cases that have held that, even though owners of businesses may owe the general public a reasonably safe environment, unless it is demonstrated that there have been other incidences of violence, proprietors are, typically, not held liable in the event that an aberration occurs and someone is injured as a result of some criminal activity on the business property.

On appeal, the court that hears appeals in Miami-Dade County ruled that the trial court made an error in relieving the association and the security company of their liability. The appellate court held that, since the association and the security company had a contractual obligation to provide for the security of the residents and guests in the community, they should be held liable for the injuries since it was shown they had breached their contractual obligation. The appellate court distinguished those cases that required a showing of evidence of prior incidences before liability could be imposed by pointing out that the homeowners association had a contractual obligation to provide for security to the residents. It is the contractual nature of the declaration of covenants that caused the appellate court to impose liability upon the Association.

This case highlights the fact that an association may not completely satisfy its obligation to provide security for its residents simply by hiring a security firm. An association must carefully monitor the services being performed by the security firm and insist upon strict adherence with screening policies at guard gates. Given that many security companies may include language in their contracts that tend to insulate the companies from potential liability in circumstances such as that described in this case, associations should be careful not to sign contracts that shift the burden of performing the contracts from the security companies back to the association. Community associations should have their legal counsel carefully review contracts between their association and the security firms to be sure that the security firms bear responsibility for complying with their own contractual obligations.