The Meter is Running
The Habitat Article Archive includes the full text of all of our
magazine articles dating back to 2002. You can view 3 articles per
month for free. (Repeat views of the same article don’t count
against your monthly limit.)
To read more, purchase a print subscription or a daily or yearly All-Access Pass
and get unlimited access to the Archive. Prices start at 1.95.
You've reached your free article limit for this month.
To read this article and gain unlimited access to the Habitat Article
Archive, which includes the full text of all our magazine articles
dating back to 2002, purchase an All-Access Pass.
Patching a roof is not the same as repairing it.
AUTHORSteven Troup, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
leak, roof, responsiblity
Accommodating a resident should not take precedence over ensuring the durability of the building.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
Steven Troup, Partner
In a large co-op we represent, a unit-owner purchased a penthouse unit and applied for the board’s consent to gut-renovate it. All parties were aware that there were sporadic roof leaks into the unit at that time. The board agreed to make repairs prior to the start of construction. The roof was patched and the unit-owner did the renovation. About six months later, during a massive storm, water again penetrated the roof into the apartment, causing substantial damage to the unit owner’s improvements and personal property. The board shortly thereafter completed a long-planned roof replacement. The roof is now leak-free. However, the unit-owner has sued the board for damages to the apartment caused by that leak.
Patching a roof is obviously not as good as replacement. Since the replacement project had long been planned, thus demonstrating that the board was aware that the existing roof had weakness(es), it would have been better to await the replacement rather than patching before authorizing the construction to begin.
However, the board had tried to accommodate a new shareholder’s desire to move in as quickly as possible.
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20. The board is insured, and may or may not have recourse against the contractor that performed the patch job, but the litigation creates additional expenses and diverts attention from more positive things