Puškini tn 19: the link between damage and a roof leak was not proved

The need for repairs did not establish the cause and amount of new loss from the particular leak.

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu). Owner XX sought compensation from Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu for damage attributed to a roof leak. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court upheld that decision: damage in the alleged circumstances, its amount and its causal link to the association’s conduct were not proved. Inspection records established a need for repairs, but not when or why the damage arose. Witness accounts conflicted. Earlier damage had not been shown to have been remedied; comparison of inspections did not establish deterioration caused by the alleged later leak. Nor was it proved that the water had actually come through the roof. New annotations on an earlier record did not establish those missing facts. The court separately explained that a damages claim does not pass automatically with an apartment under association-membership rules. However, the transfer agreement could be interpreted as assigning the claim. That did not remove the need to prove the loss itself. The appeal was dismissed and XX was ordered to pay the association 378 euros in appellate costs.

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.