Insurer takes Airbnb renter to court after sprinklers, triggered by fire, damage building
A BC Supreme Court judge decided a strata corporation’s insurers cannot sue an Airbnb renter who unintentionally started a fire and set off the building’s sprinklers.
The judgment came down this week after the insurer claimed Edmonton man John Schappert’s negligence led to property damage.
In April 2019, Schappert rented the unit at the Carlyle building, which is located near Thurlow Street and Eihu Lane in Vancouver.
The day before Schappert and his partner were expected to leave the rental, they cooked a meal and a grease fire in the kitchen ignited. This triggered the fire-suppression system and the sprinklers, which caused “resultant damage to the common property,” the decision reads.
Schappert was charged a security deposit worth $499 by Airbnb after the fire.
The Edmonton man argues that because he was a short-term renter he was “insured” under the strata’s insurance policy, “and therefore subrogation against him is prohibited as a matter of insurance law.”
In response, the insurers said Schappert did not “normally occupy” the unit since he was a short-term renter. “Therefore, he was not an insured under the strata’s insurance policy and the ‘no subrogation’ rule does not apply,” it argued.
Justice Simon R. Coval pointed out that under the strata’s insurance policy, those “named insureds” include “the persons who normally occupy the strata lots.”
“A short-term renter such as Mr. Schappert was among the persons who did normally occupy the strata lots,” Coval added.
The judge added that they disagreed with the insurers’ position that those who “normally occupy” only extend to “persons such as a spouse or children of an owner, who reside in the strata unit.”
Schappert also defended himself by saying that because of existing bylaws, he is not liable to the strata for damage covered by the insurance the strata is covenanted to obtain.
The bylaw he is referencing is that the owner is responsible for any damage caused by occupants, tenants, or visitors to the owner’s strata lot. However, the insurers once again argued this only extends to short-term renters.
Regarding this point, the judge sided with the strata.
“Schappert cannot rely on the strata’s waiver of liability… because, on the clear wording of the clause, the waiver applies only to ‘owners,'” Coval said.
Additionally, Schappert signed a document that obliged him to comply with strata bylaws and rules “without suggesting he can take the benefit of any of the rights therein.”
“It also makes him responsible for any costs incurred by the strata for remedying a contravention of the Bylaws, which would include his contravention of the s. 4.2 obligation not to cause damage to the common property,” Coval said.
Since the court decided the insurer could not pursue a subrogated claim against Schappert for the expenses paid for the fire damage, the case didn’t involve Schappert’s obligation to pay for damages.
The strata’s claim was dismissed, and Schappert was awarded costs of these proceedings “subject to the parties reaching a different agreement or making further submissions on costs.”