Court awarded RUB 158,296 in flood damage against four apartment owners

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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».

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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».

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.