Water leaks in apartment buildings are a common problem, but when the damage becomes severe, figuring out who is responsible can be complicated. The ruling of the Court of Naples of 17 October 2024 addressed precisely this type of situation: the owner of a damaged apartment sued the neighbor on the upper floor, the condominium and the insurance company to obtain compensation for the damage suffered.
The root cause? A poorly maintained balcony and front panels in a poor state of repair.
This story not only highlights the importance of maintenance in the common and private parts of a building, but also clarifies the rules on the division of responsibilities between owners, condominiums and insurance companies.
How did the court’s decision come about? And what are the implications for similar cases?
Let’s find out together.
Advertisement – Advertising
The context of the case
The legal case began with a summons from the owner of the damaged apartment, who filed a complaint serious infiltrations deriving from the flooring and the fronts of the balcony above.
According to the plaintiff, the damage to the ceiling, which included detachment of plaster, oxidation of the reinforcing bars and partial collapse phenomena, had reached such a level as to make the affected room unusable. To avoid further collapses, it was necessary to prepare emergency interventions, including the fixing of a sheet to collect water infiltrations.
The neighbour, owner of the balcony above, denied any responsibility, instead attributing the infiltrations to the poor state of maintenance of the common areas of the condominium, in particular the balcony fronts. Furthermore, he highlighted that the plaintiff had carried out modifications to his terrace, partially closing it with an aluminum structure, claiming that these works had contributed to the worsening of the situation.
The condominium, called into question for the alleged lack of maintenance of the common areas, rejected all charges and requested the intervention of its insurance company. However, the insurance company contested its responsibility, arguing that the state of maintenance abandonment made the damage not covered by the policy.
Advertisement – Advertising
The main issues addressed by the court
The Court examined three fundamental aspects to resolve the dispute. At the center of the debate was the determination of who was actually responsible for the damages suffered by the actor’s apartment. Based on the findings of the official technical consultancy, it emerged that the infiltration phenomena were caused both by the poor waterproofing of the balcony above, owned by the neighbour, and by the state of abandonment of the front panels, which did not guarantee the correct flow of rainwater .
Therefore, the judge recognized joint responsibility between the owner of the balcony and the condominium.
Another relevant aspect of the ruling concerns the legal nature of balcony fronts. The judge established that these elements constitute an integral part of the building’s façade and, as such, are considered condominium assets. Consequently, the condominium had the obligation to provide for their periodic maintenance to avoid situations of degradation such as the one that occurred.
Finally, a delicate issue concerned the legitimacy of claims for compensation advanced by the plaintiff, given that, during the course of the case, the apartment had been subject to foreclosure and subsequent transfer.
The court clarified that the right to compensation remains with the owner who suffers the damage when it occurs, since this right is independent of the ownership of the property itself. This principle has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation.
Advertisement – Advertising
The court’s decision
The Court of Naples issued a ruling that precisely distributes responsibility for the damage suffered by the actor’s apartment.
First, the judge jointly condemned the neighbor owner of the balcony above and the condominium. This decision is based on the fact that both parties contributed to the damage: the neighbor, for failing to ensure correct maintenance and waterproofing of his balcony; the condominium, for having neglected the front panels, a common part of the building, which did not allow the correct flow of rainwater.
The judge also confirmed that i balcony fronts they are part of the facade of the building and are therefore to be considered common goods. This detail was fundamental to establish that the condominium has a direct responsibility in the maintenance of these elements and that the lack of care contributed significantly to degradation and infiltration.
A crucial aspect of the sentence was the recognition of the operation of the condominium insurance policy. Despite initial objections from the insurance company, the judge ruled that the damages were covered by the policy, since there was no malice but only negligence. However, it was underlined that the condominium has the duty to keep the common areas in good condition to prevent foreseeable events, such as infiltrations, from being excluded from insurance coverage.
Finally, the court decided that the overall compensation, equal to approximately 2,899.77 euros, be divided proportionally between the neighbor and the condominium, on the basis of the ascertained responsibilities.
Furthermore, the judge ordered that the costs for the work necessary for the safety measures be shared between the parties. This apportionment reflects the court’s approach to balancing blame, ensuring that compensation is fair to the plaintiff and sustainable for those responsible.
