Water damage from upstairs neighbor?

[jplee3]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Hi all

I'm in a downstairs condo unit and my upstairs neighbor leaked into our unit, causing a good amount of water damage. We knew something wasn't right because we heard dripping late at night a couple weeks ago. After we turned the water off going into her unit for the night, the dripping eventually slowed and stopped. She had a plumber come investigate the next day and when he pulled her fridge out the water line going into her fridge was leaking (I was up there with them and saw it... no pics, unfortunately).

The water got into our unit below and saturated the ceiling above our fridge (same layout/stacked kitchen) and the lower portion of the wall was also wet and seeped into the carpet of the living room and bedroom on the other side of the wall. I contacted insurance last weekend because she was slow to respond in terms of rectifying - she claims to have fallen sick/ill this entire past week... Anyway, my insurance company sent out a water remediation company to survey the water damage then do the demo - they ripped out pretty much the entire portion of drywall behind where the fridge usually sits as well as the ceiling area and cabinets that were above the fridge. They also had to remove baseboard and carpet padding in the corners of our master bedroom and living/dining area as those rooms are on the other side of the adjoining wall which had gotten wet at the bottom. They ran dehumidifiers and fans for a few days until it was dried up.

It sounds like we're generally covered by our insurance but they will subrogate to reclaim the money from her insurance. We would also really like our deductible of $500 back (this may not be much to some of you but especially for something that clearly wasn't our fault, this is a lot of money for us). Our claims adjuster said they will try to reclaim the deductible during subrogation but there's no guarantee of it coming back. He suggested we get the insurance info from her and attempt to contact her insurance company directly to ask to reclaim the deductible based on her being liable for the damage caused.

The problem is that she seems to be avoiding contact with us and trying to stall on giving us her insurance information or claim number. She's pulling the "I was sick all week" card and said she'd send the info yesterday (after asking for the 4th or 5th time) but she hasn't. The other thing here is that she just went into escrow on her place and is in the process of selling - she opened several days before we heard the dripping behind the walls. I'm wondering if she's trying to ignore/brush this under the rug in hopes of moving out asap and not having to deal with all this.

Any advice on what we should do at this point? I've contacted our HOA and they and the HOA's insurance agent basically said this sounds like a "neighbor to neighbor" dispute/issue that we need to resolve amongst ourselves, and that they typically won't even get involved unless the damages exceed $10k. Even then, since this was the internal wall/ceiling of our units, they'd more than likely keep their nose out of it. I'm going to contact them again on Monday and try to speak with the actual property/community manager for the association just to see if they can do *something* (at least issue a letter to the neighbor indicating that they are responsible for the damages, etc). As far as speaking directly with the neighbor, I'm trying to avoid any sort of direct confrontation with her, considering how on-edge both my wife and I are having lived in what sounded like the inside of an airplane for several days.

 

[justalayman]

You haven’t posted anything that suggests she is liable for any of your damages. To be liable she must be negligent. Given it was an issue that was due to happenstance and not her negligence, you each pay your own damages.

Why are you turning off her water anyway? How do you even have access to her water valves. You’re lucky She didn’t call the police.

 

[jplee3]

You haven’t posted anything that suggests she is liable for any of your damages. To be liable she must be negligent. Given it was an issue that was due to happenstance and not her negligence, you each pay your own damages.

Why are you turning off her water anyway? How do you even have access to her water valves. You’re lucky She didn’t call the police.

Doesn't the fact that the water line going to her fridge was visibly leaking (and also that after this was rectified the dripping in my unit stopped) indicate that she's liable? My claims adjuster and the water damage remediation contractor said that how insurance companies define "negligence" may vary from one to another - some may consider not pulling your fridge out to check for leaks every now and then as "negligence" where others may not. The neighbor did mention that she noticed something was weird with her ice maker not making as much ice as of late, after the plumber pulled the fridge out and we saw the leak from the water line.

So turning the water-shutoff to her house was per her consent and request and at the recommendation of her realtor. We both communicated with him and he suggested that's what we ought to do since it was near midnight and we didn't want the dripping to continue through the night and make things far worse than they were. If we left it on, I'm pretty sure the damage would have been *much* worse. Anyway, she asked me if I knew how to use the shutoff and I said I did and helped her. I didn't shut it off on my own accord nor without her consent.

 

[justalayman]

Definition. A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).


So explain how the failure of the waterline was due to her negligence.

The only other possible issue where she would be negligent would be if she knew of the leak and allowed it to continue.




If there was no negligence on her part, she is not liable.

Again, nothing you have described would rise to legally defined negligence, regardless what your insurance adjuster and the guy that works at the remidiation company said. I have never heard anybody ever suggest a person pull out the refrigerator and check the water line “just because”.

 

[jplee3]

Definition. A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).


So explain how the failure of the waterline was due to her negligence.

The only other possible issue where she would be negligent would be if she knew of the leak and allowed it to continue.




If there was no negligence on her part, she is not liable.

Again, nothing you have described would rise to legally defined negligence, regardless what your insurance adjuster and the guy that works at the remidiation company said. I have never heard anybody ever suggest a person pull out the refrigerator and check the water line “just because”.

Could there be anything in the fact that she mentioned she noticed her ice machine was not working normally? I guess the other aspect would be if she tried to use the water dispenser in the fridge and *if* it were coming out all slow or not at all, but she didn't disclose that. She just mentioned the ice maker issue in passing while we were up there after seeing the leak: "Oh this must be why the ice maker wasn't working right" and when I asked her how long it had been that way she said "I don't know, for a while" - If you noticed your ice maker and or water dispenser weren't really working very well, isn't that something you'd probably want to contact the manufacturer about or have someone come out to perhaps check? Especially if you use both on a daily basis?

Aside from the technicalities of "negligence" is there anything else I can pursue to get that money back outside the means of hiring a lawyer? Another thing that is concerning, more so for the buyer who's in escrow, is whether or not she's disclosing any of this. If water leaked from inside the owner's unit, whether due to negligence or not, and resulted in water damage to that unit as well as the neighboring unit, shouldn't the buyer be made aware of this?

 

[justalayman]

A plugged water line would cause low ice output. A bent bail that triggers the ice maker to operate would cause low ice output. A leaking line would be very far down my list of possibilities for low output of an ice machine.

If you noticed your ice maker and or water dispenser weren't really working very well, isn't that something you'd probably want to contact the manufacturer about or have someone come out to perhaps check? Especially if you use both on a daily basis?

Possibly but not having it checked out doesn’t equal negligence.

She would have to know or have reason to believe there was water leaking. Unless there was water on the floor near the refrigerator I wouldn’t suspect there was a water leak.

You can hire a lawyer but realistically, even if you twisted her arm to pay you, you would spend more on an attorney than the $500 you think you’re owed.

What she discloses to the buyer is between her and the buyer and none of your business. I suggest you put any ideas of sabotaging the sale out of your mind. Intentionally frustrating a sale could result in some serious issues for you.

 

[adjusterjack]

Aside from the technicalities of "negligence" is there anything else I can pursue to get that money back outside the means of hiring a lawyer?

Let me simplify this for you.

If she was negligent, she owes.
If she wasn't, she doesn't.

I've paid enough condo water damage claims to be able to tell you she wasn't negligent.

However, you are welcome to sue her in small claims court for $500 and see if your theory "holds water." (Pun intended.)

You don't need a lawyer for that.

By the way, subrogation is a process by which an insurance company seeks reimbursement. There is never a guarantee of success.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

they will subrogate to reclaim the money from her insurance

she just went into escrow on her place and is in the process of selling

Based on those statements, I suggest you let your insurance company know she's selling. If they actually plan to subrogate, it may motivate them to do it faster.

 

[justalayman]

Based on those statements, I suggest you let your insurance company know she's selling. If they actually plan to subrogate, it may motivate them to do it faster.

To what end? She isn’t liable for the damages so the insurance company has no right to collect from her. Just as I said to the op, the insurance company may have to deal with some serious consequences if they frustrate the sale with no valid claim to compensation for the damages.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

To what end? She isn’t liable for the damages so the insurance company has no right to collect from her.

Interesting that you seem to have more information than the insurance company that stated they plan to subrogate. I would suspect that if they plan to subrogate, then they believe she was negligent. But, of course, you know better.

 

[jplee3]

The only other thing that comes to mind is that in the week prior (after entering escrow) and up to the same day we noticed the leak, I figured there were contractors and/or inspectors coming around to look through her unit. I had asked if any of the contractors or inspectors that had come out might have possibly moved the refrigerator to look at and inspect the water supply line as part of their inspections, etc (where it is possible that their actions resulted in the leaking line - I don't know, maybe they stressed or pulled it while pulling the refrigerator or moving it around?). The realtor just verbally wrote that off stating "No I doubt anyone did anything or checked around the fridge." The homeowner had no clue but she did indicate that some contractors or inspectors had come out earlier that day (of the leak) and didn't know what they were doing or checking as she was not at home.

 

[justalayman]

The only other thing that comes to mind is that in the week prior (after entering escrow) and up to the same day we noticed the leak, I knew there were contractors and/or inspectors coming around to look through her unit. I had asked if any of the contractors or inspectors that had come out might have possibly moved the refrigerator to look at and inspect the water supply line as part of their inspections, etc (where it is possible that their actions resulted in the leaking line - I don't know, maybe they stressed or pulled it while pulling the refrigerator or moving it around?). The realtor just verbally wrote that off stating "No I doubt anyone did anything or checked around the fridge." The homeowner had no clue. Of course, nobody seems to know what any of these contractors or inspectors actually did at this point.

Well then the negligence would fall on them for causing the damage and it would still not be the owners liability.

Based on what’s been said your tilting at a windmill

 

[justalayman]

Interesting that you seem to have more information than the insurance company that stated they plan to subrogate. I would suspect that if they plan to subrogate, then they believe she was negligent. But, of course, you know better.

So you take this as the insurance company will prevail in their claim?

It sounds like we're generally covered by our insurance but they will subrogate to reclaim the money from her insurance.

It sounds like a standard generic statement by an insurance company and nothing more. If you want to accept that as gospel, have at it. I take it for what it likely was;

We’ll subrogate and if the other party is found liable, we will seek reimbursement from her or her insurance company.

Absolutely nothing posted suggests the owner is liable but I guess you must have more information than anybody here which allows you to believe the owner is liable for some reason.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

So you take this as the insurance company will prevail in their claim?

Strawman argument. I made no such claim.

 

[justalayman]

Strawman argument. I made no such claim.

You’re the one that said the insurance company wouldn’t subrogate unless they believed there to be a valid claim. It’s common knowledge and common sense that an insurance company isn’t going to waste time unless they believe they have a winnable case. They’ve all been at this too long to act otherwise. So since you believe the simple statement made by The op is gospel you must believe the insurance company will prevail and they believe they will.

I think you have simply put too much weight in the statement op made.