(Emily Cabadas is a Merlin Regulation 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 frequent components and models. This consists of 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 beneath the coverage consists of the next:
(1) Property insurance coverage. Property insurance coverage (i) on the frequent components and the models, 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 kind 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 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 building 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 duties between unit homeowners and condominium associations is primarily dictated by the condominium affiliation’s bylaws, past what’s acknowledged within the Statute. Typically, unit homeowners are accountable for every part past the studs. This sometimes consists of inside partitions, paint, drywall, flooring, fixtures, home equipment, electrical wiring, and plumbing. Nonetheless, as a result of bylaws fluctuate, disputes regularly come up between unit homeowners 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 ground. The unit proprietor argued that the pipe was a standard factor beneath the condominium’s governing paperwork and, due to this fact, the affiliation was accountable for the repairs, together with ground injury.
The case centered on whether or not the leaking pipe served a number of models, making it a standard factor maintained by the affiliation, or whether or not it solely served the unit proprietor’s unit, during which case she was accountable for repairs. Whereas the courtroom acknowledged that the affiliation is accountable for sustaining frequent components, which usually consists of pipes serving a number of models, as a result of the unit proprietor didn’t current any proof that the leaking pipe was thought of a standard factor beneath the affiliation’s governing paperwork, they dominated within the affiliation’s favor.
This weblog has regularly mentioned the difficulty and the way States differ in figuring out when condominium associations are accountable for restore and casualty loss injury to the inside of particular person condominium models.
Some related posts embrace:
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 beneath the condominium affiliation’s accountability 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 (Unwell. App. Jan. 26, 2018).
