(Emily Cabadas is a Merlin Legislation Group legal professional 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 widespread components and items. This contains the restricted widespread components 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 beneath the coverage contains the next:
(1) Property insurance coverage. Property insurance coverage (i) on the widespread components and the items, together with the restricted widespread components 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 total insurable alternative value of the insured property, much less deductibles, however together with protection adequate 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 development protection. The mixed whole 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 homeowners? In Illinois, the division of insurance coverage obligations between unit homeowners and condominium associations is primarily dictated by the condominium affiliation’s bylaws, past what’s acknowledged within the Statute. Usually, unit homeowners are liable 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 fluctuate, disputes continuously come up between unit homeowners and condominium associations relating to protection.
In a single Illinois case, Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condominium Affiliation, 1 the unit proprietor sued her condominium affiliation and owners insurance coverage firm after her unit was broken by water as a result of a leaking pipe beneath her ground. The unit proprietor argued that the pipe was a standard ingredient beneath the condominium’s governing paperwork and, subsequently, the affiliation was liable for the repairs, together with ground harm.
The case centered on whether or not the leaking pipe served a number of items, making it a standard ingredient maintained by the affiliation, or whether or not it solely served the unit proprietor’s unit, by which case she was liable for repairs. Whereas the courtroom acknowledged that the affiliation is liable for sustaining widespread components, 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 standard ingredient beneath the affiliation’s governing paperwork, they dominated within the affiliation’s favor.
This weblog has continuously mentioned the difficulty and the way States differ in figuring out when condominium associations are liable for restore and casualty loss harm to the inside of particular person condominium items.
Some related posts embody:
All the above underscores that state-specific legal guidelines and condominium declarations dictate the precise division of obligations, 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 beneath the condominium affiliation’s duty or the person unit proprietor’s obligations. The case additionally reinforces that unit homeowners bear the burden of offering adequate proof when disputing restore prices beneath their affiliation’s bylaws.
1 Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condominium. Assoc., 2018 IL App (2nd) 170307-U (In poor health. App. Jan. 26, 2018).