Condominium associations are often caught in the middle of disputes over water damage, plumbing failures, and competing insurance claims. In Jasinska v. Briar Hill II Condo. Ass’n, 2018 IL App (2d) 170307-U, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed judgment in favor of a condominium association where a unit owner failed to establish that a leaking pipe was a common element. Since the pipe was not a common element, the condominium association was not responsible for repairing the damage from the leak. This case offers valuable guidance for Illinois condominium associations navigating issues with water leaks.
Background of the Illinois Condominium Dispute
The dispute arose after a unit owner experienced water damage in her condominium unit due to a leaking pipe beneath her kitchen floor. The plaintiff alleged that the condominium association was responsible for repairing the damage under the declaration because the pipe purportedly served multiple units and therefore constituted a common element.
The condominium association received multiple complaints of a water leak impacting neighboring units. Over time, the condominium association sent plumbers to investigate, but the leak’s source was not immediately identified. Eventually, more invasive measures were taken, including removing portions of the unit owner’s flooring and accessing plumbing beneath the concrete slab.
A contractor ultimately located and repaired the leaking pipe. After the repair, the association initially indicated that it might cover certain aspects of the work. However, the association later took the position that the pipe served only the plaintiff’s unit and that the responsibility for repair fell on the unit owner under the declaration and 765 ILCS 605/9.1(a) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act. The unit owner filed suit asserting breach of contract against the Illinois condominium association and, in the alternative, a claim against her insurer.
Illinois Appellate Court’s Analysis of the Condo Water Leak
Although the alleged breach was the condominium association’s failure to maintain a common element, the Illinois appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the pipe was a common element. The court emphasized that there was no testimony regarding whether the pipe served multiple units; no expert or plumbing evidence established the pipe’s function; and the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by the record.
The plaintiff attempted to argue that the condominium association bore the burden of proving that the pipe was a limited common element or part of her unit. The appellate court rejected this argument outright. The court held that the plaintiff, as the party asserting breach, had the burden of proving that the condominium association was responsible under the declaration. Attempting to shift that burden to the condominium association was improper.
Although secondary to the condominium association’s victory, the court also addressed the plaintiff’s claim against her insurer. The plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court improperly confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the insurer. However, the record showed that the plaintiff’s counsel expressly stated there was “no objection” to the order. The appellate court applied the invited error doctrine, holding that a party cannot complain of an error that it induced or consented to. As a result, the trial court properly granted judgment in favor of the association at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
Key Takeaways and Practical Guidance for Illinois Community Associations
This decision reinforces several important legal principles that boards and managers should understand:
- Classification of Pipes as Common Elements Is Critical
Whether a component is a common element, a limited common element, or a part of a unit can determine who pays for repairs. This case demonstrates that Illinois condominium associations should seek a community association attorney’s opinion to determine how components are classified when issues arise and whether the association or owner is responsible for repairs.
- Conduct Thorough Investigations
When dealing with water intrusion or plumbing issues, Illinois community associations should retain qualified plumbers or engineers, obtain written reports identifying the source and function of the component, and determine whether the component serves multiple units. Determining the cause of a water leak is critical in determining whether the condominium association or owner is responsible for the repair.
- Communicate Carefully with Unit Owners
In Jasinska, there were allegations that the condominium association initially suggested it would cover repairs. Even if informal, such statements can create confusion or expectations. Illinois community association boards should avoid definitive statements before confirming responsibility; communicate any issues in writing to unit owners; and clearly reference governing documents when assigning responsibility.
- Coordinate with Insurance Carriers
Water damage claims often involve both association and unit owner insurance. Early coordination can help clarify coverage issues, responsibility disputes, and subrogation rights.
Conclusion
In Jasinska, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed judgment in favor of a condominium association where a unit owner failed to establish that a leaking pipe was a common element. Unit owners must prove that an Illinois condominium association is responsible under the declaration, and courts will not fill evidentiary gaps. For Illinois community associations, the case underscores the importance of careful investigation, clear documentation, and disciplined communication. When handled properly, these disputes can often be resolved before they escalate into litigation.
If your Illinois condominium association is dealing with a complex maintenance or repair dispute, an experienced condominium attorney can help interpret your governing documents, evaluate liability, and guide the board toward a defensible and practical resolution.
