- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi All
Recently in our building a new owner laid a wooden floor in compliance with our flooring by-law. The by-law has a clause in it that says the owner or future owners are responsible at their own expense to properly maintain and carry out any serviceable repair. It also has a second clause that states the owner must indemnify the OC against loss or damage the OC suffers as a result of the perforce, repair renewal or replacement.
Three days after they moved in the hose to the dishwasher burst and caused a major flood – including damage to the floors. The owner went to claim the damage on his Home Content insurance but the company want a letter from the strata insurance stating that it was not covered under the Strata insurance.
The Strata Insurance has a section that includes floating floors, which the SC have tried to get the Insurance company to remove but they won’t – they say it is standard, even though it discriminates against owners that have carpet.
The up shot was that the owner claimed on the Strata insurance which puts our premiums up. The committee tried to argue that the by-law should take precedence.
Which takes precedence the by-law that the owner has signed or the strata insurance?
Slim
-
Replies
-
Which takes precedence the by-law that the owner has signed or the strata insurance?
IMO the committee was wrong.
Because if the by-law somehow took precedence it would leave the lot owner in a situation where they could not insure their floor. That would likely be considered harsh. The lot owner’s insurance company is right – they won’t provide cover for something that is covered by another insurance policy – in this case it was covered by the OC’s compulsory insurance.
At best the lot owner might need to pay the excess. They don’t even need to OC’s permission to make a claim.
The OC could also investigate switching to an insurer that doesn’t cover a lot’s floating floors if it’s really such an issue for them.
I wonder if the committee could charge the cost back to the owner (who could then claim it on their Home & Contents Insurance) under Section 82.
Probably not, but worth a thought.
82 Individual contributions may be larger if greater insurance costs
(1) If the use to which a lot in a strata scheme is put causes an insurance premium for the strata scheme to be greater than it would be if it were not put to that use, so much of a contribution payable by the owner of the lot as is attributable to insurance premiums may, with the consent of the owner, be increased to reflect the extra amount of the premium.
(2) The Tribunal may, on application, make an order for payment of contributions of a different amount to one or more contributions levied or proposed by an owners corporation on an owner if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the owner‘s consent has been unreasonably refused under this section.
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.
my understanding was the strata insurance only covers common property and the structure.
Anything inside a lot, including floor covering is the lot owners responsibility.
Is this not the case?
Anything inside a lot, including floor covering is the lot owners responsibility. Is this not the case?
It’s definitely not the case with compulsory strata insurance.
While compulsory strata insurance must cover the common property, it typically covers more and can include things such as lot owned buildings, fixtures, fittings and improvements. Often that “extra” cover is legislated. But sometimes the insurers include it so that they can offer a single nation-wide policy that meets or exceeds all the legislations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.