This article is about the difference between maintenance and insurance responsibilities in community titles schemes and how they interact in practical situations.
Sometimes residents in community titles schemes struggle to tell the difference between maintenance and insurance responsibilities.
One does not equal the other. If the body corporate or an owner needs to insure something, that doesn’t automatically mean they have to maintain it, and vice versa.
Although maintenance and insurance serve different purposes, they can still affect each other in practical situations.
This article clarifies common misunderstandings by explaining:
- maintenance in a body corporate
- insurance in a body corporate
- the differences between maintenance and insurance
- the relationship between maintenance and insurance.
Maintenance in a body corporate
While body corporate legislation doesn’t define “maintenance,” the term is widely understood.
To better understand maintenance in a body corporate setting, we can look to adjudicators’ decisions for guidance.
As noted by adjudicators, the District Court1, when applying a Supreme Court of New South Wales case2, said the body corporate’s duty to maintain involves:
- keeping something in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to service the purpose for which it exists
- taking preventative measures so that there will not be a malfunction (not just acting where there is already a malfunction)
- rectifying defects in the original construction of the common property.
The adjudicator in The Pavilion Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 470 similarly outlined different types of maintenance:
-
The statutory responsibility to undertake maintenance may include preventative maintenance, maintenance arising because of ‘wear and tear’, maintenance required because of poor design or construction, and replacing something that can no longer be repaired.
Additionally, adjudicators often describe maintenance as “the replacement of something already there, which has become dilapidated or worn out.”3
As outlined, maintenance, whether it’s the responsibility of the body corporate or the individual owner, generally involves ongoing efforts to preserve property through regular upkeep, repairs, or, when needed, replacement.
Insurance in a body corporate
Unlike maintenance, which tends to be routine, insurance prepares you for the unexpected—“what ifs.”
Insurance safeguards property from unforeseen damage and serious financial consequences.
The body corporate must insure the common property, its own assets, and buildings containing lots against a range of legislated risks.
These include damage from earthquake, explosion, fire, lightning, storm, water, glass breakage, impact, malicious act, and riot.
However, if a building is freestanding under a standard format plan of subdivision, the owner is responsible for insuring it.
The obligation to insure is not an obligation to maintain
Many residents mistakenly think that an obligation to insure automatically means an obligation to maintain.
The adjudicator in The Pavilion Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 470 clarified:
-
“whether an insurer chooses to cover damage under a policy of insurance taken out by the body corporate is not relevant to the question of who is legally responsible for maintenance”.
Case study A: when insurance isn’t enough
Ben owns a townhouse in a standard format plan scheme.
Under this plan type, the body corporate is responsible for insuring buildings that share common walls; this includes Ben’s, as it’s joined to the neighbouring townhouse.
However, things take a turn when a problem crops up with an exterior wall of Ben’s townhouse.
He lodges a claim on the body corporate’s building insurance, but it’s knocked back due to maintenance-related issues.
In a standard format plan, owners are usually responsible for maintaining structural and non-structural elements of most parts of the building within their lot boundaries.
In the end, the repair costs landed squarely in Ben’s lap.
Case study B: storms and solar panels
Jennifer got the green light from her body corporate to install solar panels on the common property roof, for the benefit of her lot.
Then a wild storm hit, and the solar panels were severely damaged.
While Jennifer manages the day-to-day maintenance, the panels are still considered part of the building when it comes to body corporate insurance.
Despite being responsible for their upkeep, Jennifer was able to make a successful claim on the body corporate’s building insurance, as the damage came from a storm—an insured event.
As these case studies show, insuring an item doesn’t automatically mean you have to maintain it; they’re separate responsibilities.
The relationship between maintenance and insurance
While maintenance and insurance are separate responsibilities, they often affect each other.
Insurers often deny body corporate claims when poor maintenance is the cause, leaving the repair costs with whoever is normally responsible for upkeep.
Neglecting maintenance can also push insurance premiums and excesses up, as insurers see greater risk.
In some cases, poor maintenance can prevent the body corporate from securing the required insurance cover.
As noted by the adjudicator in Mihi Grove [2025] QBCCMCmr 69, when determining whether to make an alternative insurance order, section 281A(3) of the Act invites adjudicators to consider—amongst other factors—whether a body corporate could “improve its prospects of getting suitable offers (for example by undertaking overdue building maintenance).”
Finally, the question of who should pay the excess on a body corporate insurance claim can often reflect the maintenance obligations.
For example, in Brighton on Broadwater Dune [2023] QBCCMCmr 345, there was water ingress from a failed window seal which caused damage to the applicant’s timber floorboards. The adjudicator determined that as the body corporate was responsible for maintaining the window, it should pay the insurance excess, even though the damage only affected the applicant’s lot.
We hope this article has clarified the difference between maintenance and insurance.
Given how poor maintenance can jeopardise insurance cover, it’s crucial that both the body corporate and individual owners stay on top of their maintenance duties.
Bodies corporate and individual owners might find it beneficial to put a maintenance plan in place to reduce risks.
As the old saying goes, prevention is better than the cure.
Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management
P: Information Service Freecall 1800 060 119
Footnotes
- Magog (No.15) Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for The Moroccan [2010] QDC 70 at 83 and 84
- Seiwa Pty Ltd v The Owner’s Strata Plan 35042 [2006] NSWSC 1157
- Morcom and Ors v Campbell-Johnson and Ors [1955] 3 All ER 264, cited in Carmel By The Sea [2020] QBCCMCmr 559 at [32]
This post appears in Strata News #764.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- QLD: Q&A Authorising Common Property Changes or Improvements
- QLD: Q&A Renovations, Altering Common Property and Changing the Appearance of the Lot
- QLD: Q&A Can the body corporate recover costs from lot owners?
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management website.
Visit our Maintenance and Common Property OR Strata Legislation QLD.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
Leave a Reply