There are times when residents expect the association to pay for repairs within their unit. I presented a scenario to Claude to get an idea of what the board of directors of a Florida-based condominium should do. Here are the details of the scenario: determine a unit owner’s request for reimbursement of a broken valve for a dishwasher plumbing line during an inspection for a possible leak in their unit impacting a neighbor’s unit, is due to deterioration from lack of maintenance since the dishwasher installed was not permitted and no plumbing permits are on record for over 30 years rather than negligence on the part of the plumber making the inspection.
Under Florida condominium law, a board does not “prove negligence” or its absence in a legal sense — that is a question for a court if it is ever litigated. What the board actually does is a factual causation review to decide, under the declaration and Chapter 718, whether the unit owner or the association bears monetary responsibility for the damage. The reimbursement request would be denied or granted based on that allocation, not on a formal negligence verdict against the plumber.
Here is how that typically plays out:
The starting point is the declaration of condominium, not the statute — F.S. 718.111(11) sets a default allocation of maintenance/repair responsibility, but declarations commonly override or supplement it, and most put plumbing lines, fixtures, and appliances serving only one unit (like a dishwasher supply line) in the unit owner’s maintenance column, while the association is typically responsible for the common-element risers and mains. So, the board’s first move is to confirm where in the unit the failed valve sits and what the declaration assigns.
From there, the board is doing a causation inquiry, and it leans on physical evidence, not legal argument. The facts you’ve described — a dishwasher installed with no permit, and zero plumbing permits on file for 30+ years — function as strong circumstantial evidence for the board: no permit means no code-compliant installation inspection ever occurred, and no plumbing permits since means the line was never inspected, serviced, or upgraded in three decades. Combined with a plumber’s report describing corrosion, mineral buildup, brittle/degraded material, or a valve that failed under normal operating pressure (rather than one that was struck, over-torqued, or damaged during the inspection itself), that points toward age-related deterioration from lack of maintenance rather than something the inspecting plumber did.
Practically, boards rely on a few concrete inputs to make that call: a written report from the inspecting plumber (or a second, independent plumber/engineer) documenting the physical condition of the valve and line, dated photos taken before and during the inspection showing the failure point, the county permit history (or lack thereof) for the unit, and the unit’s maintenance/repair records if any exist. If the plumber’s own documentation shows they simply accessed the area and the valve failed on its own or under minimal contact consistent with age, that undercuts a negligence claim against the plumber and supports the deterioration/lack-of-maintenance conclusion.
A few practical notes are the unpermitted dishwasher installation matters not just as evidence of age, but potentially as an independent basis for owner responsibility — unauthorized alterations to a unit without board approval and permits are typically the owner’s liability under most declarations and under F.S. 718.113(2), regardless of how the valve failed. And boards should document their reasoning (meeting minutes, the plumber’s report, permit search results) and give the owner a chance to respond, since these reimbursement disputes can end up in mandatory arbitration through the Florida DBPR’s Division of Condominiums or in court. Given the potential for a challenge, most boards run this by association counsel before finalizing a denial, especially where the inspecting plumber is also the association’s own contractor — there’s an inherent appearance issue in that contractor’s report clearing themselves that a board should address by getting an independent second opinion if the amount or the owner’s pushback warrants it.
This is general information, not legal advice — for a decision that will actually be relied on, the board should run it past the association’s attorney.
Sources:
Leave a Reply