Who Pays for the Water Damage? Understanding a Condominium Association’s Responsibility in Georgia
By: Kayla McCallum
Water damage claims in condominiums often lead to confusion over who is responsible for repairs. A unit owner discovers a leak and immediately contacts the condo association, expecting it to pay for the damage. This assumption is common: if the leak comes from “the building,” then the association must be liable. However, Georgia law does not automatically assign responsibility this way. Whether the association must pay depends on the property’s governing documents and the facts of the loss.
Under the Georgia Condominium Act, codified at O.C.G.A. § 44-3-70 et seq., an association’s responsibilities are defined by the recorded condominium instruments. These documents include the declaration, bylaws, and plats. O.C.G.A. § 44-3-107(a) generally requires associations to maintain insurance for common elements and structural components. However, O.C.G.A. § 44-3-105 clarifies that repair and maintenance duties are generally governed by the specific language in the condominium instruments. Therefore, identical water losses can result in different outcomes based on the specific property’s documents.
Most declarations draw a line between common elements and individual units, and that distinction controls responsibility. Common elements typically include the roof, exterior walls, structural supports and shared systems or spaces serving multiple units. In contrast, a “unit” typically refers to everything within the owner’s boundaries, such as the interior walls, floors, ceilings, fixtures and any systems that serve only that unit.
Responsibility for repairs often hinges on where the damage originated and what components were affected. If a pipe serving only one unit fails, the unit owner is often responsible for the resulting damage and repairs. If the leak originates from a roof or shared water line, the association may bear some responsibility. However, that determination depends on the applicable documents. Many declarations limit the association’s obligations to repairing or replacing the defective common element itself, without extending liability to any resulting damage within the units. For example, if a shared pipe bursts and causes water damage in several units, the association may only be required to fix the pipe, but not the flooring, drywall or fixtures damaged in each unit. In those situations, unit owners are generally responsible for their own interior repairs.
Master policies often complicate coverage decisions in condominium claims. Georgia law makes clear which coverages are mandatory, and water damage is not among them. Under O.C.G.A. § 44-3-107, associations must maintain insurance for common and structural elements against fire and extended coverage perils. However, water damage is not a required peril. This distinction was central in Villa Sonoma Perimeter Summit Condo. Ass’n v. Mainor, 356 Ga. App. 794 (2020), where a unit owner sought coverage for interior water damage caused by a leak originating in another unit. The owner claimed the Association violated the Georgia Condominium Act by obtaining a policy that had a deductible that exceeded the cap set forth in O.C.G.A. § 44-3-94. The court of appeals rejected the argument, holding the statutory deductible limit applies only to required coverages. The court reasoned water loss coverage was not mandated by the statute, and therefore, the Association’s obligations were governed exclusively by its instruments and the terms of its insurance policy.
In 2021, the Georgia General Assembly amended the Condominium Act to clarify that water damage is not included within the “extended coverage perils” required under O.C.G.A. § 44 3 107. The amendment confirmed the court’s interpretation in Villa Sonoma that coverage for water losses is not mandatory. Whether such coverage exists depends entirely on the language of the association’s governing documents and its insurance policy.
For insurers, the governing instruments are essential for determining responsibility and coverage. Coverage decisions should always begin with a review of the governing documents to determine if the association controls the affected component or if the unit owner bears maintenance responsibilities. These facts should guide the coverage analysis. Georgia law allows associations considerable discretion to define their responsibilities through their recorded instruments. When insurers evaluate claims based on the governing documents and the specific facts, they can make defensible coverage decisions that comply with the Condominium Act and uphold the intent of the association’s instruments.
Attorney Contact Info
Kayla McCallum
kayla.mccallum@swiftcurrie.com
404.888.6184
