Water damage in a co-ownership building: the role of the property manager and the IRSI agreement

A stained ceiling after a leak in the flat above, a collective boiler that bursts and floods three flats, water ingress through the roof terrace that ruins a suspended ceiling: water damage remains the most frequent loss in co-ownership (copropriété) buildings. For the co-owner or tenant affected, the first difficulty is not the cost of the works but the question of who reports the loss, within what time limit, to which insurer, and above all who pays. Since 1 June 2018, the IRSI agreement (convention IRSI) has reshuffled the cards between insurers and changed the role of the property manager (syndic) in handling these losses. This guide explains the reporting process, how the time limits fit together, how the IRSI compensation thresholds work, and the cases where litigation over liability for common parts or private parts becomes unavoidable again.

What the IRSI agreement has changed since 2018

The IRSI agreement, for Indemnisation et Règlement des Sinistres Immeuble (compensation and settlement of building losses), came into force on 1 June 2018. It replaced two older texts that insurers previously applied: the CIDRE agreement (low-value water damage) and the CIDE-COP agreement (specific to co-ownership buildings). The stated aim was to simplify and speed up the settlement of water damage and fire losses in buildings, by designating a single point of contact for the victim.

One point must be understood at the outset, as it governs everything else: IRSI is an agreement between insurance companies, signed under the aegis of the profession. It organises relations between insurers and the allocation of the final burden of compensation, but it is not enforceable against the insured. In other words, a co-owner cannot be refused compensation on the basis of a purely conventional rule: his rights remain defined by his insurance policy and, failing that, by the general law of liability. The agreement settles "who manages and who reimburses whom" between professionals, not the scope of the cover taken out.

IRSI applies to water damage and fire losses affecting no more than two premises, provided that the premises concerned are insured by companies that are parties to the agreement, which covers almost the entire French market. Beyond two damaged premises, or where the amounts exceed the thresholds examined below, the general law applies.

Who reports what, and within what time limits

The first rule concerns the time limit for reporting. Article L113-2 of the French Insurance Code requires the insured to report a loss to his insurer within the period set in the policy, which may not be less than five working days. In practice, most comprehensive home insurance policies adopt this five-working-day period for water damage. After that period, the insurer may invoke forfeiture of cover only if it proves that the delay caused it a loss, for example an aggravation of the damage that could have been avoided.

Each party affected by the loss reports to its own insurer. In practical terms, for a leak from the flat above into the flat below:

• the occupant of the flat where the leak originates reports to his insurer, whether he is an owner-occupier or a tenant
• the occupant of the damaged flat reports separately to his own insurer
• the landlord, if not occupying the premises, reports for matters falling within his liability as owner
• the property manager reports to the building's insurer where common parts are involved or where an unidentified occupant is concerned

The central tool at this stage is the joint water damage report (constat amiable dégât des eaux), to be completed jointly by the occupants concerned. It describes the presumed origin of the leak and the nature of the damage, and enables each insurer to identify its insured and the damaged premises. A carefully completed report, dated, signed and accompanied by photographs, avoids a large proportion of later disputes over the origin and extent of the damage.

The managing insurer, the keystone of the system

The main innovation of IRSI is the designation of a single managing insurer. It is the insurer of the damaged premises, that is, the insurer of the party suffering the damage, that handles the claim: it appoints the loss adjuster if necessary, assesses the damage and compensates its own insured. The victim therefore has a clear point of contact, his own insurer, and does not have to chase the insurer of the presumed liable party.

Where several private premises are damaged, each insurer handles its insured's damage. Where common parts are affected, the co-ownership's insurer, instructed by the property manager, becomes the managing insurer for those parts. This designation determines who runs the loss assessment and advances the compensation, before the question of the final recourse is settled between insurers.

The role of the property manager in water damage in a co-ownership building

The property manager is the legal representative of the syndicate of co-owners (syndicat des copropriétaires), a legal entity entrusted with the preservation and administration of the building by Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of co-ownership. In that capacity, the property manager takes out and manages the building's insurance, now compulsory for the syndicate since Law No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014, known as the ALUR Law, which made civil liability insurance compulsory for co-ownership buildings.

In water damage in a co-ownership building, the property manager acts at several levels. It reports the loss to the building's insurer where common parts are the source of the leak or suffer damage. It coordinates access to the common parts to trace the origin of the leak and to carry out repairs. It provides the co-owners concerned with the relevant information on the collective policy, in particular the insurer's details and the policy number, which are essential to complete the joint report.

The property manager is not meant to determine liability itself or to compensate an aggrieved co-owner out of the co-ownership's funds. Its role is to represent the syndicate, to preserve the building and to call on the collective insurance when it is concerned. A common misconception is that the property manager must handle everything, including purely private damage between two occupants: this is not the case. If the leak comes from one flat and affects only another flat, without the common parts being involved, the loss is settled between the occupants and their respective insurers, without any need for the co-ownership to intervene.

On the other hand, failure by the property manager to act may render it liable. If it delays reporting a loss affecting the common parts, if it fails to maintain collective equipment despite repeated reports, or if it does not organise urgent repairs, its liability as agent may be pursued by the syndicate or by a co-owner who has suffered loss. The remedies available to a co-owner to challenge the property manager's management are detailed in our article on challenging the management of a co-ownership property manager.

Common parts or private parts: where liability lies

The decisive dividing line in co-ownership is the one between the common parts and the private parts. This distinction is set out in the co-ownership regulations (règlement de copropriété) and in the description of division (état descriptif de division), supplemented by Articles 2 and 3 of the Law of 10 July 1965. Private parts are those reserved for the exclusive use of one co-owner; common parts are allocated to the use of all, or of several, co-owners.

Liability for common parts rests with the syndicate of co-owners. A collective pipe embedded in a load-bearing wall, a common waste stack, a roof terrace, a gutter, a rainwater downpipe: these elements in principle fall within the common parts, and the damage they cause engages the syndicate's liability, regardless of any fault, on the basis of its status as custodian of the structure. A co-owner whose flat is flooded by the rupture of a common stack does not have to prove fault on the part of the syndicate: it is enough to establish that the source lies in a common part.

Conversely, a leak from a washing machine hose, a defective shower seal or a private pipe serving a single dwelling engages the liability of the occupant or owner of that dwelling. The co-ownership regulations must be consulted carefully, as the classification of certain installations is ambiguous: pipes "after the meter" or after the branch connection to the common stack are frequently private, whereas the stack itself remains common. This classification, technical in appearance, determines the outcome of the case. The content of this document and the conditions under which it is enforceable are examined in our article on co-ownership regulations.

A practical example of classification

Imagine an old building with fifteen lots. Water ingress appears on the ceiling of a second-floor flat. The appointed loss adjuster establishes that the water comes from a leak in the common waste stack running through the service duct. The defect falls within the common parts: the building's insurance, managed by the property manager, covers the repair of the stack, and the syndicate is liable, through its insurer, for the damage caused to the flat.

Change the scenario: the same water ingress now comes from the private connection of the sink in the flat above, downstream of the stack. The loss changes in nature. It becomes water damage between private parts, settled between the two occupants and their insurers, without the syndicate's liability being engaged. Determining the exact origin, often invisible to the naked eye, justifies the leak detection discussed below.

The IRSI agreement compensation thresholds

The IRSI agreement organises the handling of losses according to bands of amounts, expressed exclusive of tax, which determine the extent of the inquiry into liability and whether or not there is recourse between insurers.

• Band 1: damage of €1,600 excluding VAT or less per damaged premises. The managing insurer compensates its insured and bears the loss itself, without exercising recourse against the liable party's insurer. Liability is therefore not investigated beyond identifying the damaged premises.
• Band 2: damage between €1,600 and €5,000 excluding VAT per damaged premises. The managing insurer also compensates its insured, but then exercises a flat-rate recourse against the liable party's insurer, according to a scale set by the agreement. Investigating liability becomes relevant again.
• Above €5,000 excluding VAT per damaged premises, the IRSI agreement no longer applies. Settlement of the loss falls under the general law: joint loss assessment, precise determination of liability, recourse between insurers on actual amounts, or even court proceedings.

These thresholds are assessed per damaged premises and exclusive of tax, which has significant practical consequences. A claim that looks modest including tax may cross a threshold once reduced to the amount excluding tax, and change regime. Likewise, a loss affecting two flats is assessed premises by premises: each premises has its own band.

The advantage of the mechanism for the victim is speed: in bands 1 and 2, the victim is compensated by his own insurer without waiting for the outcome of discussions between companies. The drawback, for the liable co-owner or for the co-ownership, is that the flat-rate logic of band 2 may lead to allocations that do not exactly reflect the actual liabilities, since recourse is exercised on a scale basis and not on actual amounts.

Leak detection: who orders it and who pays for it

Leak detection is often the sticking point. Until the source has been located, the repair can be neither carried out nor attributed. The techniques may be destructive, such as removing tiles or opening a partition, or non-destructive, such as thermal imaging or tracer gas.

The IRSI agreement provides that the managing insurer, that is, the insurer of the damaged premises, bears the cost of detecting the leak, including where it is located in other premises or in the common parts, within the limits of the agreement's ceilings. This cover includes the cost of making good after destructive detection, for example relaying the floor covering removed to reach the pipe. This point is crucial: it prevents the victim from being stuck because the leak is in the neighbour's flat or in a common duct.

The property manager plays a logistical role here. Where detection requires access to the common parts or to an unoccupied dwelling, it facilitates the intervention and, where appropriate, authorises exploratory works on the collective equipment. A failure by the property manager to cooperate, preventing a persistent leak from being located, is likely to aggravate the loss and engage its liability.

When water damage turns into litigation

Handling under the agreement works for most routine losses. Litigation reappears in several well-identified situations.

First, where the amounts exceed €5,000 excluding VAT per premises and IRSI ceases to apply. The general law of liability then applies again, with a joint loss assessment and determination of actual liability between private parts, or against the syndicate for the common parts. The higher financial stakes make each party more concerned to have its liability recognised or ruled out.

Second, where the origin of the leak is disputed or remains undetermined. If the managing insurer's loss adjuster concludes that the leak has an origin that the neighbour or the property manager disputes, a court-ordered expert assessment may be sought in summary proceedings (référé) under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, before any proceedings on the merits, in order to record the technical findings. This pre-action measure of inquiry is frequent in water ingress cases, because the defects evolve and the evidence disappears with the repairs.

Litigation also arises from damage not covered by the agreement: significant consequential losses, property values exceeding the ceilings, repeated losses revealing a construction defect or a structural lack of maintenance of the building. In the latter case, the liability of the syndicate as custodian of the structure, or even that of the builders under the ten-year liability (garantie décennale) where the time limits allow, may be pursued.

Limitation, a time limit not to be missed

An action by the insured against its insurer is time-barred after two years from the event giving rise to it, under Article L114-1 of the French Insurance Code. This two-year period, shorter than the general limitation period, often takes individuals by surprise. Reporting the loss in good time, then actively following up the claim, are therefore essential. Between co-owners, or against the syndicate, liability actions are subject to different, longer time limits, but vigilance is still required to preserve the technical evidence.

The role of an adviser at this stage is to classify precisely the origin of the loss in the light of the co-ownership regulations, to check that the IRSI agreement is correctly applied or correctly set aside, and to secure the time limits for action. A challenge that is badly brought, outside the limitation periods or without probative expert evidence, ends in dismissal, whatever the reality of the loss suffered.

Conclusion

The IRSI agreement has made the settlement of water damage in co-ownership buildings faster, by entrusting management and compensation to the insurer of the damaged premises, and by reserving the investigation of liability for amounts above €1,600 excluding VAT. But this simplification has a counterpart: it sometimes obscures the real question, that of the allocation between liability for common parts and for private parts, which remains governed by the co-ownership regulations and by the Law of 10 July 1965. The property manager is not the arbiter of the loss; it is the representative of the syndicate, responsible for calling on the building's insurance and coordinating access to the common parts.

The position taken is clear: never settle for flat-rate handling when the amounts are high or the origin uncertain. As soon as a loss approaches or exceeds €5,000 excluding VAT per premises, or as soon as the origin of the leak is disputed, the conventional logic must be set aside and the matter analysed under the general law of liability. In practical terms, before accepting compensation or admitting liability, have the origin of the defect classified in the light of the co-ownership regulations, keep the joint report and the expert reports, and monitor the two-year limitation period under Article L114-1 of the French Insurance Code. It is this rigour at the outset that determines the outcome, far more than the apparent cost of the works.

Frequently asked questions

Who reports water damage in a co-ownership building to the property manager or the insurer?

Each occupant reports to his own insurer within a period that may not be less than five working days, under Article L113-2 of the French Insurance Code. The property manager reports separately to the building's insurer where common parts are the source of the loss or are damaged. The joint water damage report must be completed jointly by the occupants concerned to identify the origin and extent of the damage.

What are the IRSI agreement thresholds in 2024?

The IRSI agreement uses two bands expressed exclusive of tax per damaged premises. Band 1 covers damage up to €1,600 excluding VAT, with no recourse between insurers. Band 2 covers damage from €1,600 to €5,000 excluding VAT, with flat-rate recourse by the managing insurer against the liable party's insurer. Above €5,000 excluding VAT per premises, the agreement no longer applies and the general law of liability takes over.

Who pays for leak detection in a co-ownership building?

The IRSI agreement places the cost of leak detection on the managing insurer, that is, the insurer of the damaged premises, including where the leak is located in another dwelling or in the common parts, within the limits of the agreement's ceilings. This cover includes the cost of making good after destructive detection, such as relaying removed tiles. The property manager must facilitate access to the common parts needed to locate the leak.

Is the co-ownership liable for water damage coming from the common parts?

Yes. Where the origin lies in a common part, such as a collective waste stack, a roof terrace or a pipe embedded in a common structure, liability rests with the syndicate of co-owners as custodian of the structure. The victim does not have to prove fault: it is enough to establish that the leak comes from a common part as defined by the co-ownership regulations and the Law of 10 July 1965.

Is the IRSI agreement enforceable against the insured co-owner?

No. IRSI is an agreement concluded between insurance companies to organise claims handling and recourse between them. It is not enforceable against the insured, whose rights remain defined by his policy and, failing that, by the general law of liability. An insured may therefore challenge a purely conventional allocation that would deprive him of compensation to which his policy entitles him.

What should be done if the origin of the water damage is disputed between neighbours?

Where the origin remains undetermined or disputed, a court-ordered expert assessment may be sought in summary proceedings under Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, before any proceedings on the merits. This measure records the technical findings before repairs remove the evidence. It is particularly useful in water ingress cases, whose effects change over time.

What is the time limit for taking action against one's insurer after water damage?

An action by the insured against its insurer is time-barred after two years from the event giving rise to it, under Article L114-1 of the French Insurance Code. This two-year period is shorter than the general limitation period and runs quickly. The loss must therefore be reported without delay, the claim actively followed up and, in the event of persistent disagreement, proceedings brought or an expert assessment sought before the period expires.