Some potential issues may arise as this unfolds:
Has the juristic entity updated the sums insured for the insurance covering the condo building and other community property to account for inflation? If not, then what's called an "average penalty" or "coinsurance penalty" may be applied to partial losses. For example, if a building was insured for its original construction cost 10 years ago for 8 million baht, but the actual cost to replace it today would be 10 million baht, any partial loss would only be paid at 80% of the cost incurred to repair. In other words, for a cost to repair quake damage that a contractor charges 1 million baht to fix, the insured would only collect 800,000 in claims proceeds. For a total loss, the insurer would pay policy limits, but these would would still be only 80% of the cost to replace. Some policies may grant some leeway on this, perhaps up to 20%, but many don't.
If it is uneconomical to repair a building due to the nature and extent of the damage, the insurer may simply state that the building is a constructive total loss, in which case the insurer could pay the policy limits. Now the juristic entity and the unit owners face a dilemma. It may take many years to replace a large condo complex and some owners may simply want to collect insurance proceeds and walk away. Unfortunately, the replacement value of the building, which was used as the sum insured, will likely only be a fraction of the market value of all the units. Even if all unit owners agreed to abandon reconstruction and the juristic entity could distribute the insurance proceeds, they'd likely only get a fraction of what they paid for their units. I am not aware of any property insurance policy that will pay the difference between replacement value and market value for condo units, or anything else for that matter. Homeowners' insurance certainly won't.
Let's hope sums insured have been updated and that all damages are superficial so that none of the buildings need to be declared a constructive total loss.