(Emily Cabadas is a Merlin Regulation 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 components and items. This contains the restricted frequent 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, until the insurance coverage protection below the coverage contains the next:
(1) Property insurance coverage. Property insurance coverage (i) on the frequent components and the items, together with the restricted frequent 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 complete insurable alternative price of the insured property, much less deductibles, however together with protection enough 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 price of development protection. The mixed whole of Protection B and Protection C shall be a minimum of 10% of every insured constructing worth, or $500,000, whichever is much less. (inside emphasis added)
However what does this imply for unit house owners? In Illinois, the division of insurance coverage duties between unit house owners and condominium associations is primarily dictated by the condominium affiliation’s bylaws, past what’s acknowledged within the Statute. Usually, unit house owners are liable for the whole lot past the studs. This usually contains inside partitions, paint, drywall, flooring, fixtures, home equipment, electrical wiring, and plumbing. Nonetheless, as a result of bylaws range, disputes incessantly come up between unit house owners 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 because of a leaking pipe beneath her ground. The unit proprietor argued that the pipe was a typical aspect below the condominium’s governing paperwork and, due to this fact, the affiliation was liable for the repairs, together with ground injury.
The case centered on whether or not the leaking pipe served a number of items, making it a typical aspect maintained by the affiliation, or whether or not it completely served the unit proprietor’s unit, during which case she was liable for repairs. Whereas the courtroom acknowledged that the affiliation is liable for sustaining frequent 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 typical aspect below the affiliation’s governing paperwork, they dominated within the affiliation’s favor.
This weblog has incessantly mentioned the difficulty and the way States differ in figuring out when condominium associations are liable for restore and casualty loss injury 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 duties, 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 below 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 enough proof when disputing restore prices below their affiliation’s bylaws.
1 Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Rental. Assoc., 2018 IL App (2nd) 170307-U (Ailing. App. Jan. 26, 2018).
