A co-owner accidentally broke down the garage door with his vehicle. This needs to be changed completely. His insurer offers to compensate us only partially. This one offers us to pay 90% of the bill because of the depreciation. Question: Are we required to accept this proposal?
Answer: Technically yes. The basis of a claim for compensation as a result of damage caused by a co-owner to the common or private parts is civil liability, which may be "contractual", in the event of a breach of an obligation contained in a contract (for example: the declaration of co-ownership), or "extra-contractual" if the fault alleged is the breach of an obligation provided for by law generally governing relations between individuals.
I just suffered a major disaster caused by the breakage of the water supply pipe in my neighbour's shower. The water damage significantly affected my apartment and movable property. I had to be relocated for more than a month to the hotel. To make matters worse, I was not insured for this damage. However, I do not know if the defective pipe is in the common portion of the building or in the private portion of my neighbour. Question: Am I entitled to claim from my neighbour or the syndicate the sums I have had to pay so far?
Although the law (1064.1 of the Civil Code of Quebec) and our declaration of co-ownership are explicit, there are still some co-owners who refuse to provide the board of directors with proof of insurance.
Questions: What means does the syndicate have to obtain this evidence? How do we enforce this section of the Civil Code of Quebec? Is there a government agency that has the authority to demand that evidence?
A co-owner has repeatedly caused several water damages in our building, due to his negligence. This resulted in a surcharge for the syndicate's insurance.
Question: Can the board of directors claim the full amount from the co-owner who caused the loss?
Question: We suffered water damage. Three apartments, including mine, were affected by the breakdown of a water heater. The co-ownership’s insurer refuses to compensate us completely, claiming that our syndicate has paid too low a premium compared to the true risk insured. More specifically, it appears that the directors took out inadequate insurance cover with a reference to a rule proportional to 80%. I do not understand that. Is the insurer right not to fully compensate us?