Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.