Flooding in a top-floor apartment: How a client of the “Strategic Advocacy” law firm managed to recover 720,000 hryvnias in compensation from the developer

Flooding of an apartment is one of the most common types of residential disputes; however, in court practice, such cases are significantly more complex than they appear at first glance. To successfully defend one’s rights, it is not enough simply to document the fact of the flooding—it is necessary to prove the cause, identify the responsible party, and substantiate the extent of the damage caused.

It was precisely this situation that a client, whose apartment is located on the top floor of a residential building, brought to the attention of the “Strategic Advocacy” law firm. Following heavy rains in Kyiv, significant flooding occurred: water seeped through the ceiling, damaging the walls, finishes, and property. According to the results of a construction and technical examination and cost estimates, the total amount of damages amounted to 720,000 hryvnias.

The key issue in the case was correctly identifying the person responsible for the damage. In most cases, flooding is linked to the actions or inaction of neighbors, and they are held liable under Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. However, in this case, the expert assessment determined that the flooding was caused by inadequate waterproofing of the roof—a structural element of the building to which the apartment owner has no access.

This allowed for the application of regulations governing warranty obligations in the construction sector. The law stipulates that the warranty period for capital construction projects is 10 years. Since the building was commissioned in 2017, liability for the identified defects rests with the developer.

With the aim of resolving the dispute out of court, the lawyers prepared and sent the developer a formal claim demanding voluntary compensation for the damages incurred. However, no response or reaction was received. In such cases, it is effective to proceed with legal action.

The attorneys prepared a lawsuit seeking damages, simultaneously filing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Specifically, they requested that the developer’s property and bank accounts be frozen up to the amount of the claims. The court granted this motion, after which the order was forwarded to the enforcement authorities for execution.

After the developer’s accounts and assets were actually frozen, the situation changed dramatically. The very next day, company representatives reached out and initiated negotiations to settle the dispute. As a result, an agreement was reached under which the client received full compensation for the damages incurred in the amount of 720,000 hryvnias. Following this, the claims were withdrawn.

Case law on such disputes shows that it is not the fact of flooding itself that is key, but rather the adequacy of the evidence. In particular, courts consider the ownership share if the property is jointly owned, evaluate the totality of the evidence even in cases where the cause of the flooding has not been directly established, and deny claims in the absence of a properly executed inspection report. Every element—from establishing the cause to confirming the extent of the damage—is subject to separate verification.

This case demonstrates that even in complex situations where the liable party ignores claims, effective legal remedies exist. Timely consultation with professional lawyers and a properly chosen strategy allow not only for identifying the liable party but also for securing actual compensation for the damages incurred.