After every accident in an apartment building, the situation often plays out according to the same scenario: the insurer compensates the resident for the damage and then looks for someone to pass the cost on to. In practice, the building manager or homeowners’ association often becomes the target—as if the mere fact of the flooding were in itself proof of their fault. However, according to lawyers, the courts are drawing a clearer line: the mere fact that an accident occurred is not enough.
This was once again confirmed by the most recent ruling of the Vilnius Regional Court, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim filed by AB “Lietuvos draudimas” against UAB “Mano Būstas Sostinė”. In this case, the defendant was represented by Egidijus Langys, managing partner of the law firm AVOCAD.
The dispute arose over flooding in an apartment caused by a leak in the common-use sewer pipe. The insurer, having paid the insurance claim to the apartment owner, sought to recover this amount from the building manager, arguing that it was the manager’s responsibility to ensure proper maintenance of the common areas and prevent damage.
However, both the trial court and the appellate court held that the mere fact that the accident occurred in a common-use facility is not sufficient to establish the administrator’s civil liability. The courts did not assess the fact of the incident itself, but rather whether the administrator had actually performed the functions assigned to him by law: whether inspections were conducted, how the condition of the piping was recorded, whether there was objective data regarding the emergency condition, and whether there was, in general, a basis for taking immediate action without the owners’ decision.
The court found that the administrator had systematically conducted inspections of the building and its engineering systems, during which the condition of the piping was assessed as satisfactory, and no conclusions were presented by competent specialists stating that the piping in question was in a state of disrepair prior to the incident. The court also noted that wear and tear on the pipes alone does not constitute an emergency condition, and in the absence of data indicating a real threat, the administrator is not obligated to initiate repair or replacement work at his own discretion without the residents’ consent.
The court clearly emphasized that, in determining the administrator’s liability, it is necessary to assess not only the consequences of the accident, but all relevant circumstances—whether specific defects were identified, their extent and significance, whether they were such that the work should already be considered mandatory, and whether the administrator had an objective basis to act immediately. Otherwise, liability would be unjustifiably shifted to the administrator simply because an incident occurred.
According to Egidijus Langis, an attorney at AVOCAD, this ruling is significant for the entire apartment building management sector: “In this case, we succeeded in getting the courts to rule very clearly on a line of reasoning that is common in practice but legally unfounded—namely, that if an accident occurs, then the administrator is responsible. In our view, an important and fundamentally correct precedent is being established: when asserting a subrogation claim, the insurer must prove specific unlawful acts or omissions by the administrator, rather than relying solely on the fact of the flooding itself,” notes E. Langys.
According to the lawyer, it is also commendable that the courts assessed this situation objectively and consistently, which helps put an end to a practice that all too often served as a source of profit for insurers at the expense of administrators and communities.
This ruling sends a clear message to homeowners’ associations and property managers: proper technical maintenance, periodic inspections, documented assessments of the property’s condition, and compliance with the law are of paramount importance in disputes with insurers. However, according to an AVOCAD attorney, it is equally important that liability cannot be presumed solely on the basis of an accident—all conditions for civil liability must be established.