Apartment water damage liability

Baby01032012

I have a first floor apartment. A pipe burst in my apartment flooded the apartment but also the apartment underneath and common area as a result short circuited fuse board in the block which caused damage to wiring etc.

I don't have insurance on the apartment. The management company have told me the block insurance is invalid as it was my liability. What is the extent of my liability is here.

Opinions welcome.

Paulw

Something within the unit is generally your responsibility. So, you would be liable.

Did you determine the cause of the pipe failure within your unit?

Baby01032012

Paulw wrote: »

Something within the unit is generally your responsibility. So, you would be liable.

Did you determine the cause of the pipe failure within your unit?

Yes, I had a new shower installed. The guy who did it didn't tighten one of the copper joints leading to the pipe bursting. So it's my fault. He's more of a family friend, has no insurance and has no money to cover the damage.

I was just wondering if there was anyway sinking fund or block insurance could cover damage to the block. This is the big cost, 10,000s+

Many thanks.

whippet

Unfortunately it seems like you are liable. You had work done which caused the damage. It wouldn't be fair on the other members if they have to use their sinking fund and insurance to cover the damage.

If the damage is a high as you think you might need to get proper legal advice.

There may be a clause in your lease with the management company about using proper tradesmen with insurance for plumbing work etc.

Baby01032012

whippet wrote: »

Unfortunately it seems like you are liable. You had work done which caused the damage. It wouldn't be fair on the other members if they have to use their sinking fund and insurance to cover the damage.

If the damage is a high as you think you might need to get proper legal advice.

There may be a clause in your lease with the management company about using proper tradesmen with insurance for plumbing work etc.

Thanks, completely agree it's my liability. Might get legal advice depending on the amounts involved. However I might just be throwing away more money.

I was the one who used an unregistered tradesman. Used him as a friend of the family. It was last time I was going to use him because of the quality of his work.

john kinsella

Hang on a second, the Mgt Co are talking nonsense here.

The block policy will of course cover this. It is a leak or an escape of water that is covered on every block policy.

The fact that your friend caused the leak by not tightening a pipe or whatever makes no difference.

The block policy will pay up for this and then they may chase your friend to recover the money that they have paid out. If he doesn't have insurance himself, doesn't have the means or wasn't doing the works in any professional capacity it mightn't go much further.

OP if I were you I would ask the Mgt Co for a copy of the policy schedule and notify the insurance company yourself. As long as you are an owner you are a part of the Mgt Co too.

whippet

john kinsella wrote: »

Hang on a second, the Mgt Co are talking nonsense here.

The block policy will of course cover this. It is a leak or an escape of water that is covered on every block policy.

The fact that your friend caused the leak by not tightening a pipe or whatever makes no difference.

The block policy will pay up for this and then they may chase your friend to recover the money that they have paid out. If he doesn't have insurance himself, doesn't have the means or wasn't doing the works in any professional capacity it mightn't go much further.

OP if I were you I would ask the Mgt Co for a copy of the policy schedule and notify the insurance company yourself. As long as you are an owner you are a part of the Mgt Co too.

good chance the block insurance policy will have a €5k excess which is payable by the person making the claim.

So if you make the claim you will have to fork out €5k initially and then when the insurance company settle the rest of the bill they will look to recoup from the party who caused the damage. As you used a mate as opposed to a insured certified tradesperson you could be pursued by the insurance company as you were probably in contravention of your lease with the management company.

john kinsella

whippet wrote: »

good chance the block insurance policy will have a €5k excess which is payable by the person making the claim.

So if you make the claim you will have to fork out €5k initially and then when the insurance company settle the rest of the bill they will look to recoup from the party who caused the damage. As you used a mate as opposed to a insured certified tradesperson you could be pursued by the insurance company as you were probably in contravention of your lease with the management company.

Oh absolutely the excess may well and probably will be high.

All I wanted to say to the OP was that it is covered and they were given the wrong information. A €5,000 liability is better than €10,000s.

seamus

You only have an automatic liability for the damage inside your own apartment.

The management company or other apartments would need to take you to court to prove liability.

Don't take their word for it. Tell them to go jump for it.

If they decide to press the issue and go to court, got yourself a solicitor who can give proper advice. They probably won't though, they have a block policy, it'll be cheaper to use that.

For the moment just look after your own, you have no proven liability for anyone else's costs.

Paulw

There are many block insurance policies that actually exclude water damage. This is due to the number of block policy claims due to improper work leading to water damage.

Some insurance policies also have an excess of 10k, rather than 5k.

All these factors will depend on who the block policy is with, the previous claims in your block, etc. Policies very much differ from development to development.

The OP has already stated that the leak was caused by poor work. So, the OP should take a case against the tradesman who caused the fault. It would be likely, due to costs involved, that the management company would take a case against the OP. I know if it was in our development, I'd make sure that the management company took a case, all the way, due to the possible costs involved.

spaceHopper

Sorry I know you are in a jam but you idiot what were you doing having no insurance, have you a mortgage, it would be a condition from the bank. You've caused damage to other peoples homes, what if they have to move out? At Christmas! You don't deserve help they do.

seamus

Paulw wrote: »

The OP has already stated that the leak was caused by poor work.

Liability in this case is dependent on proving negligence on someone's part. Water damage, like fire damage, does not incur a liability on the part of the person where the leak began unless you can explicitly prove negligence.

The OP states that the person who carried it out is uninsured, but that doesn't mean that they're incompetent or that the work carried out was of a poor standard. Components and joints can and do fail after installation, it doesn't prove that they were poorly installed.

athtrasna

spaceHopper wrote: »

Sorry I know you are in a jam but you idiot what were you doing having no insurance, have you a mortgage, it would be a condition from the bank. You've caused damage to other peoples homes, what if they have to move out? At Christmas! You don't deserve help they do.

Mod note

Please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting again, attack the post not the poster.

In relation to your response above, you cannot insure what you don't own. Apartments are insured under the block policy. You can't insure privately.

seamus

<deleted post snipped>

Apartment purchases generally don't include buildings insurance because the structural/rebuild costs are covered by a block policy. Water damage is covered by the contents insurance. There is no obligation on anyone to have contents insurance.

john kinsella

seamus wrote: »

<deleted post snipped>

Apartment purchases generally don't include buildings insurance because the structural/rebuild costs are covered by a block policy. Water damage is covered by the contents insurance. There is no obligation on anyone to have contents insurance.

Contents insurance covers contents. The block policy will cover timber flooring, skirts, architraves, walls etc inside the apartment

Paulw

john kinsella wrote: »

Contents insurance covers contents. The block policy will cover timber flooring, skirts, architraves, walls etc inside the apartment

Nope, it won't. It will not cover such items at all. Walls, yes, because they are part of the structure, but not flooring, etc.

Paulw

seamus wrote: »

Liability in this case is dependent on proving negligence on someone's part. Water damage, like fire damage, does not incur a liability on the part of the person where the leak began unless you can explicitly prove negligence.

The OP states that the person who carried it out is uninsured, but that doesn't mean that they're incompetent or that the work carried out was of a poor standard. Components and joints can and do fail after installation, it doesn't prove that they were poorly installed.

The OP stated that the tradesperson is at fault -

Baby01032012 wrote: »

The guy who did it didn't tighten one of the copper joints leading to the pipe bursting. So it's my fault. He's more of a family friend, has no insurance and has no money to cover the damage.

Since they didn't tighten the joint, causing the leak, they would be at fault.

Either way, an assessment would have to be done, to determine damage, etc. But, this still wouldn't fall under block insurance, so the OP would be liable.

the_pen_turner

Paulw wrote: »

The OP stated that the tradesperson is at fault -



Since they didn't tighten the joint, causing the leak, they would be at fault.

Either way, an assessment would have to be done, to determine damage, etc. But, this still wouldn't fall under block insurance, so the OP would be liable.

This is only the OP s opinion on what caused it. The op probably is t qualified to diagnose why the joint failed. There are loads of reasons why a joint failed. . Some are the tradesman fault and some arnt.

john kinsella

Paulw wrote: »

Nope, it won't. It will not cover such items at all. Walls, yes, because they are part of the structure, but not flooring, etc.

You are incorrect. The block policy will cover walls, floor coverings (excluding carpets as they are classified as contents) skirting boards, architraves, plasterboard, light fittings (excluding shades), kitchen units etc etc

A contents policy covers what you would take with you when you move house i.e. clothing, personal effects etc. It also strangely covers carpets too even though you would hardly bring them with you.

hawkelady

Baby01032012 wrote: »

The guy who did it didn't tighten one of the copper joints leading to the pipe bursting. So it's my fault. He's more of a family friend, has no insurance and has no money to cover the damage.

Since they didn't tighten the joint, causing the leak, they would be at fault.

Either way, an assessment would have to be done, to determine damage, etc. But, this still wouldn't fall under block insurance, so the OP would be liable.[/quote]

You are wrong.. I had a similar thing happen me.. flooded the apt below cause my water tank leaked !! The excess was 5k which I paid and the insurance covered it. It cost 26k to repair. So you are wrong. Op get onto mgmt company telling them you will be pursuing the block insurance. Good luck

Baby01032012

hawkelady wrote: »

Since they didn't tighten the joint, causing the leak, they would be at fault.

Either way, an assessment would have to be done, to determine damage, etc. But, this still wouldn't fall under block insurance, so the OP would be liable.

You are wrong.. I had a similar thing happen me.. flooded the apt below cause my water tank leaked !! The excess was 5k which I paid and the insurance covered it. It cost 26k to repair. So you are wrong. Op get onto mgmt company telling them you will be pursuing the block insurance. Good luck[/quote]

Thanks for all comments.

I've told the apartment owner below that I will cover his carpet replacement as I feel bad for the circumstances he is in, new baby etc. Probably his contents insurance would have covered that, anyway he owl get sorted.

Caretaker had assessor on site today with my workman present, notified him not me. I heard back that while showing the assessor the damage all the blame was put on me.

Will await the outcome. I'd be happy to pay the excess on the block policy if that's an option.

tradesman

you need to employ an insurance assessor to work for you as opposed to a loss adjuster who works for the insurance company. The assessor will know what you are & are not covered for. Do not try to do this yourself. Get an expert involved

K.Flyer

john kinsella wrote: »

Contents insurance covers contents. The block policy will cover timber flooring, skirts, architraves, walls etc inside the apartment

I had this very discussion with an insurance company, contents are considered to be the items or possessions that you would realistically remove from a property if you were moving out.

Gumbo

K.Flyer wrote: »

I had this very discussion with an insurance company, contents are considered to be the items or possessions that you would realistically remove from a property if you were moving out.

Think of it in two sections.

If you turned the building upside down - contents insurance covers everything that would fall out. Buildings insurance covers everything that would remain such as doors, kitchens, wardrobes, flooring etc

But, in apartment blocks, the insurance policies are completely different to houses, so it could very well be the basic structure that's covered here.

hawkelady

Is a boiler structure or contents as a matter of interest ?

Paulw

hawkelady wrote: »

Is a boiler structure or contents as a matter of interest ?

It wouldn't be structure, since it can be replaced. We've had some residents who have replaced their boiler. I've replaced mine for a larger one.

Gumbo

hawkelady wrote: »

Is a boiler structure or contents as a matter of interest ?

Probably none. It's an appliance.
But insurance would cover the damage caused by a leak or s fire as such.

Could you claim for a new boiler if it broke down....probably not?

john kinsella

Paulw wrote: »

It wouldn't be structure, since it can be replaced. We've had some residents who have replaced their boiler. I've replaced mine for a larger one.

Again this is incorrect. The boiler is a part of the buildings therefore covered on the block policy.

Of course people replace boilers all the time, it is still covered under the block policy if an insured peril operates though i.e it is destroyed in a fire.

seamus

FWIW, even insurers aren't clear on the distinction.

My wife's friend had an issue in their apartment where the plasterboard was all crumbling from one wall. Issue was traced back to a leak from higher up in the building that happened when it was being constructed and was never properly dried out or repaired. Entire inside wall and ceiling needed to be ripped off, dried out and replastered.

Block insurance wanted nothing to do with it, not a structural issue. Homebond didn't care, not a structural issue. Builder gone bust. Contents insurer initially said no, structural issue, not their problem. But after several months and getting solicitors and assessors involved, the contents insurance eventually covered it.

It would seem in recent years that the insurance companies are resolving this by specifically offering apartment cover, which is contents + fixtures & fittings.