Radiator leak: association ordered to reimburse insurer’s payment

Editorial summary

An insurer sought reimbursement from the association for a floor damaged by a leak. The court awarded EUR 2,001.95 plus EUR 250 in costs, finding a breach of the duty to maintain the common heating system.

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18 korteriühistu · 80175147

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · 11223507

B OÜ

OÜ E

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimAmount of compensationHeatingRadiators, risers and the shared heating system

Participants and roles

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal — claimant, insurer
Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18 korteriühistu — defendant
XX — third party without independent claim, apartment owner
B OÜ — repair quotation provider, name concealed in source
OÜ E — leak report provider, name concealed in source

The dispute and the court’s decision

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal paid apartment owner XX EUR 2,001.95 for floor damage caused by a leak on 11 May 2016 and claimed that sum from Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18 korteriühistu. The association denied breach, citing the radiator’s location inside the apartment, lack of access and the owner’s duty to report problems, and disputed the repair scope. The court treated the unified heating system’s pipes and radiators as common property even inside an apartment. The leak resulted from failure of an old seal connecting the radiator and pipe. The association did not prove proper maintenance, renewal measures or an excuse for breach. Causation and transfer of the owner’s claim to the insurer that paid compensation were established. The amount was supported by inspection records, B OÜ’s quotation and a payment document. OÜ E’s report also supported the leak’s cause. The court rejected the argument that replacing one panel sufficed: restoring the previous appearance and technical requirements could necessitate repair of the entire covering. No damage-causing conduct by the owner, obstruction of access or grounds for reducing compensation were proved. The claim was allowed: the association was ordered to reimburse the insurer EUR 2,001.95 and EUR 250 in filing fees. The association and third party XX bear their own costs. The award does not confirm actual payment by the association.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay the insurer EUR 2,001.95 and EUR 250 in litigation costs. The third party bears their own costs.

Entry into force has not been reverified