Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-25-19226Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-19226/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: reimbursement of insured water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; person concerned — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu of 1964 euros paid for water damage and late-payment interest. The association submitted no position, but the court examined evidence of insurance, payment, causation and the amount of damage. The water came from a defective common system: piping and a towel dryer installed by the association. Location inside an individual apartment does not exclude common ownership. The court found a breach of the maintenance duty and a causal link to the damage; no evidence excusing the breach was provided. Insurance payment transferred the owner’s claim to the insurer. The estimate established restoration costs; the mentioned equipment costs were outside the claim. The award was 1964 euros in damages and 117.42 euros in late-payment interest for 23 October 2025 to 25 May 2026, totalling 2081.42 euros. From 26 May 2026 statutory late-payment interest runs on principal until payment. A further 575 euros in costs was awarded with statutory late-payment interest from finality of the order quantifying costs until performance. Payment by the association was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay 2081.42 euros in damages and accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest on principal, and 575 euros in costs with separate late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.
First instance
Case 2-16-13377Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · 80146002

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designQuality and acceptance of worksRepairs and shared propertyRoof and atticDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-13377/118Read act

Separate act page

Defective roof works: recovery of rectification costs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP · OÜ Alakki · 80146002 · 11482887 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and customer — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu; Defendant and contractor — OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

The association sought 1500 euros from a contractor for defective replacement of roof pipes. The court found defects in both the original and warranty works and awarded the full amount claimed.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu, additionally named Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44, sought 1500 euros from OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP for rectifying defective work. The contractor replaced 17 roof pipes; the work was accepted and paid for. Leaks later appeared. The association notified the defects and the contractor began warranty repairs, but the association stopped them as technically unsuitable and engaged OÜ Alakki. The court assessed an audit, court-appointed expert evidence, testimony and photographs. It found unsuitable components and inadequate sealing that allowed moisture beneath the roof covering. Video of proper technique on another site did not prove it had been used on this building. Both the original work and attempted repair were found deficient. The contractor had been given an opportunity to remedy defects. Absence of the formal record required by the contract did not negate written notices and repairs begun. However, the court excluded the part repaired by another firm before the contractor was notified. Later rectification and audit costs supported compensation. The claim was granted within the 1500 euros requested. Procedural costs were imposed on the contractor, with their amount to be fixed separately.

Outcome of this decision

OÜ IMHOTEPKOMP must pay the association 1500 euros within the amount claimed. It bears its own and the association’s procedural costs, the latter to be fixed separately. Permission to appeal was granted.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
Grant the claim in full. […] The court grants permission to appeal.
First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-13377/130Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kangelaste 44: contractor must reimburse correction of roof defects

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 44 korteriühistu · Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP · 80146002 · 11482887

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44; Defendant and appellant – Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP

How it started · editorial summary

After the contractor’s failed repair, the association engaged another contractor and sought reimbursement.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The circuit court upheld the award of 1 500 euros against Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP in favour of the apartment association KANGELASTE 44 for remedying roof defects, changing the reasons in part. Korteriühistu KANGELASTE 44 sought 1 500 euros in damages from Osaühing IMHOTEPKOMP after replacement of 17 roof ventilation pipes. The association alleged that the contractor damaged roofing around the pipes, causing leaks, and attempted repairs with bitumen mastic did not cure the defects. Another company was engaged for repairs and a building audit commissioned. The contractor argued that it was not given sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the work and that the expenses were excessive. The county court granted the claim. Tartu Ringkonnakohus upheld the 1 500-euro award, clarifying its legal reasoning and assessment of the amount. Expert materials and witness testimony supported defects in both the original work and attempted repair. Failed remedial work was a fundamental breach of contract. The association therefore did not have to give the contractor yet another additional deadline and could engage another contractor to remedy the defects. The circuit court found 1 143,84 euros for remedial work and 360 euros for the audit justified. The total established was 1 503,84 euros, but the association sought only 1 500 euros and that was awarded. Another company’s later, cheaper estimate did not prove the actual cost of the relevant repairs. Appeal costs were imposed on IMHOTEPKOMP; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment confirms the contractor’s compensation obligation, rather than an actual payment to the association.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss IMHOTEPKOMP’s appeal and uphold the association’s 1 500-euro award. Amend the reasoning in part. The contractor bears appeal costs, to be quantified separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the appeal and leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 11 March 2019 unchanged. Amend the county court judgment’s reasoning in part.
Appeal
Case 2-17-5112Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageAccess for inspection and repairAmount of compensation

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal · № 2-17-5112/13Read act

Separate act page

Rahu 28A: a leaking riser and the association’s response to denied access

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium · Appeal

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; defendant — KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A

How it started · editorial summary

Denied access required examination of the association’s further steps to maintain the common riser.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A (now — Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu). AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal sought reimbursement of 1218 euros and 79 cents paid for water damage from KORTERIÜHISTU RAHU 28A. The parties did not dispute the leak from a valve on the common hot-water riser or the insurance payment. The association relied on owner XX having denied access during earlier repairs and disputed the amount of loss. The first-instance court dismissed the claim. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case to the preliminary stage. Having no right to enter without consent does not itself establish compliance with all duties to maintain common property. Further measures needed examination, including convening a meeting, taking decisions or other steps to address denied access. Failure to act may give rise to liability; the first-instance court also failed to justify excusing a possible breach. Important documents required Estonian translations even in simplified proceedings. The parties must have an opportunity to present evidence with the burden of proof properly allocated. If a breach is established, the compensation claim could have passed to the insurer following payment; association liability does not exclude liability of an owner who breached duties. The amount of loss had not been assessed and requires examination. The appeal was allowed in part; the first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted to the preliminary stage; breach and the amount of loss remain to be established.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-17-5112/26Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu 28a: association ordered to pay insurer 1 218,79 euros

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 11223507 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal; Defendant – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer’s claim was granted; the judgment copy contains an operative part without circumstances or reasons.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Viru Maakohus granted the claim by AAS BTA Baltic Insurance Company Eesti filiaal against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu and awarded the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages. It also awarded 425 euros in litigation costs against the association, which must bear its own costs as well. The judgment was made under the simplified procedure and gives the result without an account of the circumstances or reasons. The operative part describes recovery as a recourse claim: the insurer’s demand to be reimbursed for the damage amount. The text does not show what happened, what evidence was examined or what the association argued in response. The specific basis for its liability is therefore not set out here. The court did not grant separate leave to appeal but explained that an appeal was possible for substantial and clear errors in law or assessment of evidence. A participant first had to notify the court of an intention to appeal within ten days of service of the operative part. The court would then supplement the judgment with an account of the circumstances and reasons. The judgment does not establish actual payment of the awarded sums.

Outcome of this decision

Award the insurer 1 218,79 euros in damages and 425 euros in litigation costs against the association. The association bears its own costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant the claim.
First instance
Case 2-16-12373Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS

Damage and insuranceFireLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageInsurance payment and insurer’s claimRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-16-12373/34Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Fire in a shared attic: the compensation dispute was remitted

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Korteriühistu XX Narva · If P&C Insurance AS · · 10100168

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Korteriühistu XX Narva; third party — If P&C Insurance AS

How it started · editorial summary

The court required examination of fire-safety measures and the basis of the association’s liability.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Owner XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu XX Narva for water damage caused while extinguishing a fire in the shared attic. The association disputed liability and the amount of loss; insurer If P&C Insurance AS participated as a third party. The first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a breach by the association. The appellate court reversed and remitted the case. Association duties may arise directly from statute, rather than solely from its articles or meeting resolutions. Maintaining the common attic and basic fire safety are association responsibilities; failure to act may give rise to liability. The cause of the fire remained unresolved. The association must prove what safety measures it took; the court pointed to the need for a Päästeamet assessment of fire safety. Liability insurance does not remove the injured owner’s right to claim against the association. The insurer’s willingness to reimburse part of the loss and payments to other owners required examination, but did not constitute a final award in this claim. On rehearing, liability must be established first and the amount of loss then examined. The first-instance court will allocate costs according to the new outcome.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was reversed and the case remitted; liability and the amount of compensation remain undecided.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Remit the civil case to Viru Maakohus for fresh examination.
Appeal
Case 2-15-13634Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Linda tn 1 korteriühistu · 80180424

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationHeatingRadiators, risers and the shared heating systemChanges to or disconnection from heatingAccess for inspection and repair

How it started · editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-13634/27Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Linda 1: association ordered to reimburse insurer for part of the damage from a heating leak

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

If P&C Insurance AS · KÜ Linda 1 · OÜ Roburink · 10100168 · 80180424 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – If P&C Insurance AS; Defendant – KÜ Linda 1; Policyholder and owner of the damaged premises – OÜ Roburink

How it started · editorial summary

The dismissal judgment was set aside; the association is liable for part of the damage, while the owner’s contribution to its occurrence reduced compensation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

If P&C Insurance AS paid OÜ Roburink 16 292,44 euros for damage to the interior finishes of non-residential premises following a radiator leak on 22 August 2013 and sought reimbursement from the apartment association Linda 1. The county court dismissed the claim, but the circuit court set aside the judgment and granted the claim in part. The appeal court found a valid insurance contract and transfer of the claim to the insurer proved. Central heating radiators are shared property. Having taken over management of the entire system on 6 June 2013, the association had to inspect its condition and ensure access to valves in an emergency. Reliance on the summer season and the recent takeover of management did not remove those duties. The court linked their breach to the damage. The court accepted the restoration works calculation: the association proved earlier flooding, but not that its consequences were included in the submitted estimate. However, OÜ Roburink had altered the heating with deviations from the design, had not ensured the necessary supervision and cooperation with the association, and access to the valves was absent. The court therefore reduced compensation by 70%. The association was ordered to pay 4888 euros* in damages and 1065,35 euros in accrued late-payment interest. From 3 June 2017, interest accrues at the statutory rate until payment of the 4888 euros*; all late-payment interest awarded together is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs at both levels are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The court applied the legislation in force when the damage arose. Use of this judgment in a new dispute requires attention to later legislative changes and the circumstances of that case.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the claim and appeal in part: award 4888 euros* in damages, 1065,35 euros in late-payment interest, and further statutory late-payment interest on 4888 euros* from 3 June 2017 until performance against the association. Total late-payment interest is capped at 4888 euros*. Costs are borne 70% by the insurer and 30% by the association; monetary amounts are determined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. Allow the appeal in part.
Appeal
Case 2-15-16043Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu · 80310766

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingDamage caused during repairsCause and proof of damageRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-16043/43Read act

Separate act page

Damages claimed for an alleged leak after roof repairs

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KRAAVI 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: XX — claimant, owner; Association — defendant

How it started · editorial summary

The alleged damage after repairs was not found proven.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KRAAVI 12 (now — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 12 korteriühistu). XX sought compensation from KÜ KRAAVI 12 for damage to interior finishes allegedly caused by roof repairs. The association disputed the leak and the loss claimed. The court disregarded Russian-language documents lacking the translation it had requested, could not establish where or when the photographs were taken, and considered testimony from witnesses who saw no flood damage. Its concluding reasons find the damage unproven.

Outcome of this decision

The operative part dismisses the claim in full. The concluding reasons find no proof of damage and therefore do not examine the other conditions of liability. The claimant bears the association’s costs, to be quantified separately.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-15-16043/63Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Kraavi 12: dismissal of damage claim following roof repairs upheld

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Kraavi 12 · 80310766

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant and appellant – XX; Defendant – KÜ Kraavi 12

How it started · editorial summary

The appeal was dismissed: the claimant had not proved damage, and the court rejected the arguments about procedural breaches.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought 4500 euros in compensation and late-payment interest from the apartment association Kraavi 12, alleging that repairs to the roof, eaves and gutters in 2014 had damaged the apartment. The association denied flooding and damage. The county court dismissed the claim, and the circuit court left the judgment unchanged. The main reason for dismissal was failure to prove the damage itself in the circumstances alleged. Two witnesses examined denied the presence of flooding traces. Some Russian-language documents were disregarded: the court required an Estonian translation, set a deadline and explained the need for translation again, but the claimant did not provide one. The appeal court rejected the procedural objections. The claimant could have made a separate request to examine the necessary witness and objected to its refusal but did not do so. The claimant also did not ask for new facts and evidence to be admitted on appeal in the prescribed way. The court found the allocation of the burden of proof correct. As damage was unproved, the other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.

Outcome of this decision

Leave the judgment of 15 July 2016 unchanged and dismiss the appeal. Damage in the alleged circumstances was not proved; other conditions for the association’s liability were not examined separately.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Dismiss the appeal.
Appeal
Case 2-14-20708Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 19 korteriühistu · 80054978

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyRoof and attic

How it started · editorial summary

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

· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-20708/51Read actAppeal

Separate act page

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

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu · 80054978

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — owner XX; defendant — Puškini tn 19 Korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

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

The dispute and the court’s decision

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.

Outcome of this decision

The dismissal was upheld and the appeal refused; the association was awarded 378 euros in appellate costs.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Leave the judgment of Viru Maakohus of 3 May 2016 unchanged.
Appeal
Case 2-14-7448Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kivilinna tn 17 korteriühistu · 80054102

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-7448/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Association ordered to pay insurer 2 213,90 euros for damage from a shared riser

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Salva Kindlustuse AS · DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU · 10284984 · 80054102

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant Salva Kindlustuse AS – paid the insurance compensation.; Defendant DAUMANI 17 KORTERIÜHISTU – found liable for the damage.; Owner XX – recipient of the insurance payment, not named as a party to the claim.

How it started · editorial summary

The court granted Salva Kindlustuse AS’s claim against the apartment association DAUMANI 17, awarding 2 213,90 euros for insurance compensation paid and 200 euros in court fees.

The dispute and the court’s decision

On 19 November 2012, a hot-water system failure damaged the interior finishes of an insured apartment. The insurer paid owner XX 2 213,90 euros and sought that sum from the association, relying on its duty to maintain the shared system. The parties did not dispute the incident or the insurance payment. The association objected that the insurer had been notified late, the repair amount needed expert assessment, the works did not match the damage, and the cause of the pipe rupture had not been proved. It considered the failure accidental and denied liability. The court linked liability to the association’s duty to keep shared building systems in working order and noted that the owner’s claim had passed to the insurer to the extent of the insurance payment. The association knew about the incident and damage, including through the certificate it had issued on 21 November 2012. The late-notification objection was rejected: the cited provision allowed the insurer to reduce or refuse payment, but did not require refusal. The law did not require damage to be assessed exclusively by an expert opinion. The association had not specified which works it disputed or on what grounds. The court placed on it the burden of proving circumstances that could exclude liability for the system’s condition. The claim was granted in full. In addition to 2 213,90 euros, the court awarded 200 euros in court fees and imposed all costs on the association. This is an award to the insurer; the judgment does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

Order the apartment association DAUMANI 17 to pay Salva Kindlustuse AS 2 213,90 euros to reimburse the insurance payment and 200 euros in court fees. All costs are borne by the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs.
First instance