- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
I own one of four downstairs apartments in Vic. The balcony of the apartment upstairs had many building faults which have been identified and fixed at the owners expense after disagreements. It has taken 15 months since I first advised and I have damage to the ceiling in my bedroom caused by this. The body corp insurance will repair my place but there is a $1000 excess. I expected the upstairs owners to be responsible for my repairs and pay this but I was told by the manager that I have to pay this. There are 8 apartments upstairs and all decisions are made in their favour
-
Replies
-
If the insurer was prepared to pay out, that suggests the owners corp was liable. If the OC is liable, they should pay the excess, not you. The fact that the majority of owners decided tio arrange inadequate insurance is not your fault and it definitely is theirs. Send them a bill and pursue it through your local small debt court system. Or just tell them that’s what you are going to do and maybe they will see sense.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Water damage to common and lot property and what’s covered by the OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance is a bit complicated.
AFAIK and in my experience from being involved in quite a few insurance claims it tends to work as follows:
1. Liability for any water damage usually requires establishing negligence.
2. For a burst pipe or water from storm damage, establishing negligence is often impossible, so usually no one, including the OC/BC, is deemed to be legally liable in those situations. Letting a bathtub overflow or failing to maintain a gutter might be deemed to be negligent so there could be liability on a lot occupier or the OC/BC in those situations.
3. The OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance usually covers much more that just common property. It also tends to cover building elements that can belong to the lots including lot fixtures and fittings. It does not cover lot contents.
4. If a burst pipe occurs for which there is no liability, the affected parties have to repair their own property. So the OC/BC must repair common property and common contents while the lot owners must repair lot property and lot contents.
5. The OC/BC’s building insurance generally won’t cover the cost of repairing the burst pipe itself. But it will usually cover the consequential damage caused to insured building elements and common property contents. Both the OC/BC and the lot owners can choose to claim on the OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance for items that are covered by the policy. That can include lot fixtures and fittings but not lot contents.
6. If a water leak occurs for which there is liability due to negligence, the affected parties can either claim on their own insurance or claim against the negligent party. If the OC/BC was deemed negligent, the legal liability cover in its compulsory building insurance should hopefully cover any successful negligence claim made against it.
7. If an insurance claim is made in the above situation, the insured party forgoes any further right to claim from the negligent party. The insurance company gets that right. OC/BC insurers will not further purse negligent lot owners as they are members of the OC/BC but they have been known to further pursue negligent tenants.
8. Who pays the excess in the event of an OC/BC compulsory building insurance can vary according to legislation that differs around Australia and sometimes is decided by the OC/BC (eg at each AGM).
It’s complicated, so no wonder it’s hard to understand!
thanks