Owners Corporation Reinstatement and Replacement Insurance – What Should it Cover?
Owners Corporation Legal Case Update.
The Owners Corporation Act 2006 (VIC) (‘OC Act’) provides that an Owners Corporation must take out reinstatement and replacement insurance for all buildings on the common property. The definition of building in the OC Act has been expanded to include “any improvements and fixtures forming part of the building”. This has led to some confusion regarding the extent of an Owners Corporation’s insurance obligations and thus the duty of the managing agent.
However, a recent case in VCAT has helped define the scope of these obligations, as a lot owner was successful in bringing an action against the managing agent for failing to insure the lot’s fixtures. The proceedings commenced as the compressor of an air-conditioning unit attached to the relevant lot, which was not covered by the Owners Corporation’s insurance policy, broke down. The lot owner was successful in arguing that the compressor was a fixture of the property as it was present when the lot was purchased and was not intended to be kept by the lot owner upon sale of the property. Furthermore, it was irrelevant that the compressor could be detached because the detachment would be a long and arduous procedure. Therefore, it was decided the compressor and the air-conditioning unit should have been covered by insurance.
This finding raised questions as to whether the managing agent breached its duty to exercise due care and diligence in the performance of its functions. There was evidence to suggest the manager knew the Owners Corporation did not have mechanical breakdown insurance and did not urgently obtain a quote or raise the issue with the Owners Corporation at the next Annual General Meeting. The tribunal held that a reasonable manager, with similar knowledge and experience as the current manager, should have addressed these issues urgently. Accordingly the manager was considered to have breached its obligation to exercise due care and diligence.
Case Reference: M.R.O Nominees Pty Ltd v Network Pacific Real Estate Pty Ltd (Owners Corporations) [2013] VCAT 1492.
Any further questions, please contact a member of our Owners Corporation team.
Related Articles
View AllCommittees- a recap on the legal technicalities associated with committee elections and membership

By Phillip Leaman
14 February 2025
When the Owners Corporation has no funds- what do you do?

By Phillip Leaman
17 January 2025
Owners Corporations Act update – Form changes from Consumer Affairs Victoria

By Phillip Leaman
7 December 2024
Loans to Owners Corporations – Tips and Tricks

By Phillip Leaman
6 December 2024
Owners Corporation case law update- Common property car park free for all! But not after VCAT intervenes

By Phillip Leaman
19 November 2024
Owners Corporation case law update- Developers and Managers beware!!

By Phillip Leaman
8 November 2024
Owners Corporations Case law update- The Saint-John Decision- Lot owners have a right to emails and phone numbers!

By Phillip Leaman
25 October 2024
Pay up lot owners or lose your lot!

By Phillip Leaman
15 October 2024
Stop Suing Managers!! The Owners Corporation Manager

By Phillip Leaman
1 October 2024
Owners Corporation case law update – Ford v Owners Corporation SP24717 (Owners Corporations) [2024] VCAT 547

By Phillip Leaman
24 September 2024
Is this the death of short stay accommodation in apartment buildings in Victoria?

By Phillip Leaman
30 August 2024
Owners Corporation Case Law Update – Smith v Owners Corporation Plan No. RP002839 (Owners Corporations) [2024] VCAT 447

By Phillip Leaman
27 August 2024