Water Damage After Short Caused by Faulty Breaker Box

My question involves a condominium located in the State of: Texas

Here is what happened; my neighbor hired an electrician to deal with his electric panel. When the electrician opened the panel, it exploded and that caused upstair sprinklers to work for more than 45 mins. I, downstair neighbor, got all the water damage and needed to stay in a hotel for 3.5 months during the repair. The upstair neighbor's insurance company rejected my claim since that was the "panel's" fault, but not my neighbor's. My insurance company, which happened to be the same company (and therefore same adjuster), covered the repair but I still have to pay for my deductible. Also, my neighbor said he would not contribute for my deductible personally, when I asked. Is there any way that I could get my deductible back? Small claims court, possible?

You could attempt to sue the neighbor and the electrician, however, the cost of proving your case would likely exceed the money you would get from winning. You would need to show the electricians negligence caused the sprinklers to come on.

Ask the condo association (or the management company if there is one) if they can assist before you consider court. We are in Illinois. If this was brought to our attention, we would first tell the unit that caused the damage that they need to reimburse the owner whose unit they damaged for their deductible. If they don't cooperate we would reimburse the owner who had to pay for a deductible and bill the unit that caused the damage via the assessment billing process.

This could vary state by state but the condo association should know how it works in your state. This does come up at least once a year for us.

In order to hold somebody liable for damages, you have to prove more than "damages happened" - to start with, you have to establish that they engaged in a negligent or reckless act. Hiring an electrician to investigate a problem isn't negligent. The act of the electrician in merely opening the breaker box isn't negligent.

If the electrical box exploded, the fire department would have come out to investigate, and there will be a report that attempts to describe how the fire was caused. What was determined to be the cause following that investigation? Breaker boxes don't burst into flames for no reason.

The state's condo law and/or the declaration could contain provisions that allow for the HO to get their deductible from the unit that originated the damage regardless of whether they were negligent or not. IL condo law has a provision that allows for the board upon notice and opportunity of a hearing to bill the deductible to the unit where the damage originated.

Ditto on getting the fire report. We had an owner last year that was claiming they did not set their balcony on fire and we told them to provide the fire report that says it was not them and then they just assumed responsibility for the damage.

Quote:

---

mihamih;662781]The state's condo law and/or the declaration could contain provisions that allow for the HO to get their deductible from the unit that originated the damage regardless of whether they were negligent or not. IL condo law has a provision that allows for the board upon notice and opportunity of a hearing to bill the deductible to the unit where the damage originated.

---

First, the OP is in Texas so what happens in Illinois is irrelevant.

I presume this is the law you spoke of though:

Quote:

---

(c) Deductibles. The board of directors of the association may, in the case of a claim for damage to a unit or the common elements, (i) pay the deductible amount as a common expense, (ii) after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, assess the deductible amount against the owners who caused the damage or from whose units the damage or cause of loss originated, or (iii) require the unit owners of the units affected to pay the deductible amount.

---

actually, that law does not say what you claim. The owners charged with causing the damage are allowed a hearing. The odd thing: it does not appear to explain if there is any level of proof required or really, what the hearing itself is intending on determining. It doesn't appear to state what the hearing is intended on determining though. I would say that makes that section of the law difficult to enforce due to its ambiguity, should anybody actually contest it.

Quote:

---

Ditto on getting the fire report. We had an owner last year that was claiming they did not set their balcony on fire and we told them to provide the fire report that says it was not them and then they just assumed responsibility for the damage.

---

You would get a curt: get your own report; from me if I was in their shoes.

Thanks for your time to answer my question.

I totally understand about negligence.

For the cause of explosion, the insurance company investigated it and concluded that that was the panel's fault even though they did not see any deficiencies in the panel. That sounded unreasonable, therefore I have requested to send me reports of the investigation although they said that I would have to send a formal letter in order to get it. I suspect that the electrician might have done something to cause this, but since I was not there to see what he did, I cannot think of a way to prove it even if he did. The problem is that the company who made that panel is out of business (the panel is 28yr old) and the insurance company cannot go after it.

But I still do not understand why my policy needs to be used to cover this damage and why I have to pay my deductible when the water was originated from the upstair's unit.

Because you buy a policy to protect your valuables from damage. You did not buy a policy with a zero deductible.

The hearing that they refer to is I believe a hearing by the board. The board has a "trial" Then if the HO is unhappy with the board's decision, they can go to court. According to our lawyers though for a court to over turn the board's decision, the court would not only have to find that the board's decision is wrong but would also have to find that it is unreasonable. So they recommend that we always have a board hearing which would make their job in court easier. This is all on paper though. We really have not had conflicts that ended up in court other than delinquent accounts for as long as I've been involved.

Now, I don't understand why on this forum you and the other guy spend so much time trying to beat up my answers. You took the time to look up the IL condo act. Why not take the time to look up the TX one instead and actually help the HO? Or is there no condo act in TX? Or is the point of this forum to just tell the HO to get an attorney (i.e. generate revenue for someone int the trade)?

Quote:

---

But I still do not understand why my policy needs to be used to cover this damage and why I have to pay my deductible when the water was originated from the upstair's unit.

---

turn that around and look at it. Why would the upstairs neighbor be on the hook for this? A person becomes liable when they cause damage to another. So far, you have said nothing that would show the upstairs neighbor was negligent or reckless and caused your damage. Due to that, there is no reason the upstairs neighbor would be liable for your damages.

Now, if either the neighbor or the electrician had done something that resulted in the damage, then you would have a place to seek compensation.

I am curious; you said the sprinkler went off. Was there an actual fire? If not, where is the sprinkler head in relation to the electrical panel?