• This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by .
  • Creator
    Topic
  • #75188
    dbmn67
    Flatchatter

      Hi,

       

      I am the owner of an apartment with a leaking balcony on the top floor in Victoria.

      Recently been made aware that I am responsible to pay for damages to apartments below.

      It is rented out and I am wondering if my landlord insurance will cover liability due to this?

      It has been an ongoing issue for the past few years and the builder has come out to inspect in the beginning but recently has disappeared I believe.

       

    Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #75200
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        I would say probably not. Property insurances like landlord insurance generally cover the consequences of events rather than defects.

        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.
        #75218
        sm_sydney
        Flatchatter

          Hi All

          Before lodging an insurance claim, you have to consider what caused the damage? Failure of waterproofing on a balcony would be considered repairs and maintenance, membranes usually fail over time (life expectancy).

          Generally a claim is activated after an ‘”insurable event” occurs,  for example a burst pipe in the slab causing water damage

          #75692
          dbmn67
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Thanks for the replies, just wanted to update as I don’t see many coming back with one.

            My insurance company has agreed to pay the claim.

            It was due to failing waterproofing and many building defects of the balcony, i.e. no overflow drain etc.

            I had it redone out of my own pocket before being apartments below sought me for damages.

            Total amount payable was north of 5 figures so very grateful for this outcome.

            #75726
            optusJo
            Flatchatter

              It’s a great outcome for you.  Did your insurance indicate why/how they decided this?

              #75751
              dbmn67
              Flatchatter
              Chat-starter

                They didn’t but just mentioned they will cover on the grounds of idmenity.

                #75903
                lukepilot
                Flatchatter

                  It sounds like you would have benefited from good advice and help from a knowledgeable strata manager to avoid what sounds like a stressful situation.

                  If this happened in Victoria, Lot owners should remember to take steps to actively maintain any part of the property which is owned by them. In Victoria, the courts presently view the legal ownership of a private balcony waterproofing as part of the private lot property.

                  Section 129 a) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 applies – Care of lots

                  A lot owner must—

                  (a)     properly maintain in a state of good and serviceable repair any part of the lot that affects the outward appearance of the lot or the use or enjoyment of other lots or the common property

                  Lot owners need to consider that the Water act of 1969 establishes the liability of the lot owner for damage caused by an unreasonable flow of water from their land to another’s land.

                  Builders are also liable for faulty materials and workmanship. This is generally a period of 10 years from the date of completion. This is established in the BUILDING ACT 1993 – SECT 137C Warranties for purposes of homes under section 137B

                  It sounds like your contents insurer provided cover for the legal liability for the damage to other lots.

                  #75966
                  optusJo
                  Flatchatter

                    In Victoria, I have an example of a strange case where the insurance company paid out quite a large some of money to the owner of the apartment whose washing machine cable had burst and damaged their own contents apartment.

                    The claim was made against the buildings strata insurance.  The strata ended up paying only the excess.
                    Apparently this was done because the owner did not have contents insurance and possibly because it compromised the building slab.

                  Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.