Compensation for damage from a flooded apartment
Recovered apartment flood damages from four property owners
After the client’s apartment was flooded, the dispute required a court-appointed expert assessment. The experts assessed the repair costs for the apartment and damaged wardrobe at RUB 158,296.20. The court ordered four owners of the apartment above to compensate the damage and dismissed the claims against Mercury Management Company.
Situation
Ruslan Nigmatullin’s apartment was flooded from the apartment above. The incident damaged the apartment finishes and a built-in wardrobe.
The management company’s inspection report identified an open valve on the towel-rail riser in the upper apartment as the cause of the flooding. The upper apartment had four owners.
The damage was not compensated voluntarily, so the client brought a court claim seeking compensation for the consequences of the flooding.
Legal Task
Establish the amount of damage caused by the flooding, identify the persons legally responsible for compensating it and obtain a court award for the proven damage together with recoverable litigation costs.
How the Work Proceeded
What We Did
- 01
Represented Ruslan Nigmatullin in the apartment flood damage dispute.
- 02
Used the post-flood inspection report, ownership information for the upper apartment and other case materials to substantiate the circumstances of the incident and identify the proper defendants.
- 03
Participated in the court proceedings concerning the expert assessment, which determined RUB 139,720.80 in apartment restoration costs and RUB 18,575.40 for restoration of the damaged wardrobe.
- 04
Supported the claim for the proven damage and the recoverable portion of litigation costs against the owners of the upper apartment.
The client’s apartment was flooded from the floor above
The client is the owner of an apartment in a multi-apartment building.
After the flood, numerous damages were recorded in the apartment.
The suspended ceilings, walls, wallpaper, doors and the built-in wardrobe were damaged.
The management company drew up an inspection report of the premises.
The report stated that the cause of the flood was an open valve on the heated towel rail riser in the apartment above.
Water went through several rooms of the apartment
Damage was recorded in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom, hallway, living room and bedroom.
The consequences included:
- sagging of the suspended ceilings;
- yellowing and damage to the wallpaper;
- traces of leaks;
- swelling of the door structures;
- damage to the built-in wardrobe;
- tearing of the suspended ceiling fabric.
The client engaged an appraiser to determine the cost of restoration.
Before going to court
The initial report valued the restoration repairs at RUB 417,599
An appraisal report was prepared at the client’s request.
The cost of the restoration works was set at:
RUB 417,599.
The cost of the report itself was:
RUB 9,000.
On the basis of this appraisal, a demand for voluntary compensation was sent to the owners of the apartment above.
The demand was not voluntarily satisfied.
The client then went to court.
The owners of the upstairs apartment denied their fault
The defendants disagreed with the claims.
They argued that the flood could have been caused by the management company and the condition of the building’s utilities.
One of the defendants also disputed the amount of the claimed damage.
The proceedings required two key circumstances to be established:
where the water actually came from;
what the cost of restoring the apartment was.
The management company also became a defendant
The claims were refined during the proceedings.
ООО УК «Меркурий» was joined as a defendant.
The management company denied liability and pointed to the open valve in the apartment above.
The question of who should bear responsibility was resolved by the court on the basis of the whole body of evidence.
Key stage of the proceedings
The court ordered expert assessments on the cause of the flood and the cost of repairs
The court ordered an expert assessment to resolve the dispute.
The experts examined the damaged apartment, the premises above and the building’s engineering structures.
No traces of moisture or leakage were found in the attic.
The experts concluded that the most likely cause of the flood was:
a leak of water from the apartment above.
The cause was an open valve on the heated towel rail riser
The court assessed the management company’s inspection report, photographs, the results of the expert assessments, witness testimony and the explanations of the participants.
The court established that the flood came from the apartment above.
The cause was a leak due to an open valve on the heated towel rail riser.
The version that the flood was caused by the management company’s workers in the attic was not confirmed.
Responsibility was placed on the owners of the apartment above
The apartment above belonged to four owners in shared ownership.
The court concluded that responsibility for the damage caused by the flood lay with the owners of that apartment.
The court dismissed the claims against ООО УК «Меркурий».
Important detail of the case
The RUB 417,599 from the initial report was not awarded by the court
The initial pre-trial appraisal valued the restoration repairs at:
RUB 417,599.
However, a court-ordered expert assessment was carried out during the proceedings.
The expert excluded part of the damage, since it could not be reliably established that it arose from the disputed flood.
The cost of the restoration works of the apartment according to the court-ordered expert assessment was set at:
RUB 139,720.80.
A separate expert assessment was needed for the damaged property
The initial court-ordered expert assessment did not determine the damage to the built-in wardrobe.
The court therefore ordered an additional expert assessment.
The cost of restoring the wardrobe at the date of the expert assessment was set at:
RUB 18,575.40.
Together with the repair of the apartment, the proven damage amounted to:
RUB 158,296.20.
A court-ordered expert assessment can change the amount — but does not necessarily destroy the prospects of the case
In this case the client’s initial appraisal was significantly higher than the amount later confirmed by the court-appointed experts.
But the reduction in the amount of damage did not mean a refusal to protect the right.
The court established the source of the flood, identified the responsible persons and awarded the proven amount of restoration costs.
This is a good example of why two questions must be separated in a property dispute:
who is responsible for the damage caused;
what amount of damage can be proven.
Part of the client’s costs was additionally awarded
In addition to the compensation for damage, the court awarded part of the costs incurred by the client.
The following was awarded from the four defendants:
RUB 3,411 — the costs of the pre-trial appraisal;
RUB 2,791.12 — the court fee.
The total amount awarded from the four owners, including these costs, was:
RUB 164,498.32.
Each of the four owners is liable in proportion to their share
The court awarded the following from each of the four owners of the apartment above:
- RUB 39,574.05 — damage;
- RUB 852.75 — appraisal costs;
- RUB 697.78 — court fee.
RUB 41,124.58 from each defendant.
In total:
RUB 164,498.32.
Result
The court ordered four owners of the upper apartment to compensate the damage
On March 27, 2024, the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Krasnoyarsk partially granted Ruslan Nigmatullin’s claims in case No. 2-53/2024.
The court awarded RUB 158,296.20 in flood damage against the four owners of the apartment above: RUB 139,720.80 for apartment restoration work and RUB 18,575.40 for restoration of the wardrobe.
Including the awarded appraisal expenses and state filing fee, each of the four defendants was ordered to pay RUB 41,124.58. The aggregate first-instance award was RUB 164,498.32.
The court dismissed the claims against ООО УК «Меркурий» (Mercury Management Company). On July 8, 2024, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court left the first-instance judgment unchanged. Viktor Erofeev of Konsultant Law Firm represented the client.
Why This Case Matters
In apartment flood disputes, it is important to establish the source of the incident, identify the legally responsible parties and determine the actual amount of damage. A claimant’s initial valuation and the findings of a court-appointed expert may differ significantly.
In this case, the court-appointed expert assessment formed the basis for the damages calculation, while liability was allocated among the four owners of the apartment from which the flooding originated. The management company was not held liable.
Legally accurate result
The court granted the client’s claims in part
The initially claimed amount of property damage was RUB 417,599.
The court-ordered expert assessments established a smaller amount of proven damage.
The client’s claims were therefore granted in part.
The court awarded:
RUB 158,296.20 in compensation for the flood damage
and part of the costs incurred by the client.
The court dismissed the claims against ООО УК «Меркурий».
Our role
Konsultant Law Firm represented the claimant — the owner of the flooded apartment.
The case was handled on the firm’s side by lawyer Viktor Erofeev.
The work included analyzing the circumstances of the flood, the management company’s documents, the positions of the owners of the upstairs apartment and the results of the court-ordered expert assessments.
The court established the source of the flood and ordered the owners of the apartment above to pay RUB 158,296.20 in compensation for the flood damage, together with part of the client’s costs.
Client
Ruslan Nigmatullin
Client role
claimant
Subject
compensation for apartment flood damage
Court
Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Krasnoyarsk
Case
No. 2-53/2024 (2-1626/2023)
UID
24RS0017-01-2023-000285-86
Decision
March 27, 2024
Reasoned decision
April 18, 2024
Appeal
July 8, 2024 — judgment left unchanged
Apartment damage
RUB 139,720.80
Wardrobe damage
RUB 18,575.40
Total damage
RUB 158,296.20
Appraisal expenses
RUB 3,411
State filing fee
RUB 2,791.12
Aggregate amount awarded
RUB 164,498.32
Liable parties
four owners of the upper apartment
Mercury Management Company
claim dismissed
Lawyer
Viktor Erofeev

Managing Partner, Konsultant Law Firm
Nikolay Nemkov
Has your apartment been flooded and the damage remains unpaid?
We will review the circumstances of the flooding, inspection reports, ownership documents, damage assessments and the possible responsible parties to determine the appropriate claims and prepare a court strategy.
