(Emily Cabadas is a Merlin Legislation Group lawyer within the Chicago, Illinois workplace)
In Illinois, Part 12 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/12) requires condominium associations to have property insurance coverage that covers the frequent parts and items. This contains the restricted frequent parts and, besides as in any other case decided by the board of managers, the naked partitions, flooring, and ceilings of the unit.
Extra particularly, 765 ILCS 605/12 states:
(a) Required protection. No coverage of insurance coverage shall be issued or delivered to a condominium affiliation, and no coverage of insurance coverage issued to a condominium affiliation shall be renewed, except the insurance coverage protection underneath the coverage contains the next:
(1) Property insurance coverage. Property insurance coverage (i) on the frequent parts and the items, together with the restricted frequent parts and besides as in any other case decided by the board of managers, the naked partitions, flooring, and ceilings of the unit, (ii) offering protection for particular type causes of loss, and (iii) offering protection, on the time the insurance coverage is bought and at every renewal date, in a complete quantity of not lower than the complete insurable substitute value of the insured property, much less deductibles, however together with protection ample to rebuild the insured property in compliance with constructing code necessities subsequent to an insured loss, together with: Protection B, demolition prices; and Protection C, elevated value of building protection. The mixed complete of Protection B and Protection C shall be at least 10% of every insured constructing worth, or $500,000, whichever is much less. (inner emphasis added)
However what does this imply for unit house owners? In Illinois, the division of insurance coverage tasks between unit house owners and condominium associations is primarily dictated by the condominium affiliation’s bylaws, past what’s said within the Statute. Usually, unit house owners are accountable for all the things past the studs. This sometimes contains inside partitions, paint, drywall, flooring, fixtures, home equipment, electrical wiring, and plumbing. Nevertheless, as a result of bylaws differ, disputes ceaselessly come up between unit house owners and condominium associations concerning protection.
In a single Illinois case, Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condominium Affiliation, 1 the unit proprietor sued her condominium affiliation and householders insurance coverage firm after her unit was broken by water on account of a leaking pipe beneath her flooring. The unit proprietor argued that the pipe was a typical ingredient underneath the condominium’s governing paperwork and, due to this fact, the affiliation was accountable for the repairs, together with flooring harm.
The case centered on whether or not the leaking pipe served a number of items, making it a typical ingredient maintained by the affiliation, or whether or not it completely served the unit proprietor’s unit, by which case she was accountable for repairs. Whereas the courtroom said that the affiliation is accountable for sustaining frequent parts, which generally contains pipes serving a number of items, as a result of the unit proprietor didn’t current any proof that the leaking pipe was thought-about a typical ingredient underneath the affiliation’s governing paperwork, they dominated within the affiliation’s favor.
This weblog has ceaselessly mentioned the difficulty and the way States differ in figuring out when condominium associations are accountable for restore and casualty loss harm to the inside of particular person condominium items.
Some related posts embrace:
All the above underscores that state-specific legal guidelines and condominium declarations dictate the precise division of tasks, resulting in variations in outcomes throughout jurisdictions. In Illinois, Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condominium Affiliation highlights the significance of clearly establishing whether or not a broken element falls underneath the condominium affiliation’s duty or the person unit proprietor’s obligations. The case additionally reinforces that unit house owners bear the burden of offering ample proof when disputing restore prices underneath their affiliation’s bylaws.
1 Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condominium. Assoc., 2018 IL App (second) 170307-U (Ailing. App. Jan. 26, 2018).
