Renting w/ an illegal washer/dryer in a coop

How do you know if the W/D is illegal?

The owners told us that the coop does not allow them and they snuck it in.

How long ago did they install it?
How long is your lease / how long do you plan on living there?

They installed it 6 years ago. It is a 1 year lease and we would stay 2 years, at most.

just have the owner take over the liab in the lease. Otherwise I would guess your landlord will sue you for any substantial damage. So you should also have renter's insurance.

If I was the landlord, I will say is the tenant's responsibility for any damage.

You say "I assume it would be the owner's responsibility if something did go wrong."

Not so. Let's say the washer overflows and causes water damage to the apartment below, where the owners have valuable Oriental rugs.

Liability will attach to whomever is negligent. In this case, that could be both you and your landlord. Your landlord knowingly installed an illegal washer/dryer and you knowingly used the illegal washer/dryer. As well, the downstairs neighbor's insurance company will go after both you and your landlord for the costs. If your landlord doesn't have the ability to pay, you will be on the hook.

The only way you could avoid liability would be to *never* use the washer/dryer in the unit.

Under what scenario would the owner not be able to pay such that the subtenant had to pay?
Why would the downstairs owner even bother with the subtenant?

And exactly why is this w/d more prone to overflowing than any normal w/d?

You ask "Under what scenario would the owner not be able to pay such that the subtenant had to pay?"

There are lots of scenarios under which this could happen. For example, the owner is so kited up with debt that he or she has no assets to satisfy judgment.

You ask "Why would the downstairs owner even bother with the subtenant?"

It would not be the downstairs tenant. It would be that tenant's insurance company. In negligence actions, an insurance company would go after anyone who might have assets that could be used to satisfy judgment. In this case, negligence would be so easy to establish -- the illegality of the appliances in question. That's why both the landlord and the tenant would be named as defendants in any litigation. It's Litigation Basics 101 -- name every possible party as a defendant and then throw in a few dozen John Doe defendants to boot.

You ask "And exactly why is this w/d more prone to overflowing than any normal w/d?"

I didn't say that it did, but washers do overflow from time to time if the pump malfunctions or the drain hose comes undone. It happens. It could happen here. And the downstairs tenant could have valuable Oriental rugs or valuable artwork or valuable antiques.

"And the downstairs tenant could have valuable Oriental rugs or valuable artwork or valuable antiques."

or the unit could leak into a wall all the way down through the building. Or the suds and water could back up into other people's apartments. Or there could be a lint fire or perhaps the building's electrical system can't handle the W/D unit. Then there could be damage to multiple units and common areas of the building. I've seen all these things happen when residents sneak W/D units into buildings where they're not allowed. That's why buildings don't allow these units unless the plumbing and other infrastructure can handle them.

And then the person who knowingly used a washer-dryer unit they're not allowed to use in the building would be on the hook. Not my area of law, but if the lease was silent on the W/D the owner might be able to go after you for damages, too.

Good luck.

What about if the tenant says that they were never told that the w/d was not legally installed? Since hey do not have the proprietary lease info they may not know it is illegal. Aren't they not liable if it is not in the lease, and they can deny that they were verbally told that the w/d was illegal?

Excellent point skippy2222. It's Litigation Basics 101.

You say: "What about if the tenant says that they were never told that the w/d was not legally installed?"

In the matter being discussed here, the tenant does know. So what you've raised is not particularly relevant. And you're also assuming the tenant has not seen the proprietary lease.

That aside, ignorance of the law is no defense. Unless the landlord specifically indemnified the tenant, the tenant can be on the hook for damages. Ignorance does not excuse him/her from liability to third parties, e.g. other neighbors. As well, if the tenant has renter's insurance, the policy may specifically state that coverage does not include any unlawful or prohibited hookups. Given that prohibited washer/dryer hookups are common in Manhattan, an easy argument can be made that the tenant had a duty to know as a matter of law whether or not the appliances were lawful.

After paying out for damaged to flooded neighbors, the tenant *could* bring an independent cause of action against the landlord and use his/her ignorance in a claim for restitution. However, given that the tenant was used as the deep pocket because the landlord has no assets (per our discussion above), that's small consolation.

Indemnification from the landlord here is key. Without it, the tenant using the washer/dryer may get stuck paying the bill. Once negligence is established, the law will be most sympathetic to the third parties (the flooded neighbors) who suffered damage. The law will then look for any deep pocket it can find, and the tenant using the washer may be the most attachable and profitable one.

All of the above aside, even if the washer/dryer was legally installed with all necessary permissions, the tenant *still* could be liable if the washer overflows. That's why it's so critical to have renter's insurance because not only does it protect your property, it also indemnifies you against liability.

(I should also note here that I am not nor have I ever been in the insurance business and have no personal stake in anyone buying renter's insurance.)

"That aside, ignorance of the law is no defense."

Indeed.

HOWEVER, this is not ignorance of the LAW, this is ignorance of the specific SITUATION. Some buildings allow W/Ds, some don't. How is the renter supposed to know (in any example) which is the case UNLESS the landlord/leaseholder discloses this? Unless the owner let's the renter know this in writing, it seems as if the onus is on the landlord.

What Sonya said.
Tenant has nothing to worry about here, except the coop finding out about the w/d and ordering its removal, and therefore no use during the remainder of the lease.

Sonya, you're arguing logic. The way the law works isn't always logical. When a plaintiff sues, the plaintiff's insurance company's attorney(s) will look for every possibly liable party and try to collect from them and, ultimately, sue them -- the unit's owner, the tenant, whatever plumber installed the washer, possibly the building, etc. All of those parties will need to be represented in court and, if they don't answer, a default judgment will be rendered against them.

So, possibly, the tenant may be able to argue successfully the position you've taken and thus will not be considered negligent. He/she/they will not have to pay any damages. However, he/she/they will still have to pay for an attorney; no one will reimburse for that and litigation isn't cheap. Additionally, while any lawsuit progressed, being named as a defendant may have negative employment and/or credit implications. And, the tenant will have litigation hanging over his/her/their head for several years.

If the original poster knows the washer/dryer is not allowed and uses it anyway, and the appliance subsequently causes flooding, which often happens per Generalogoun's post, that is inviting trouble. And, renter's insurance may not cover it if the appliance is not permitted.

"Tenant has nothing to worry about here"

Sorry, that's just flat out bad advice, particularly in this situation where the tenant would be using an appliance he/she knows is not permitted.

I know of two cases where tenants with lawfully installed washer/dryers that flooded were nonetheless found to be liable for damages. In both cases, they were insured, and the insurance company indemnified them.

If there's no insurance or the insurance doesn't cover an illegal washer/dryer, then the tenant could be facing a particularly ugly judgment and garnishment of wages for years.

Both liable = big trouble

Find another apartment

If they are doing this against the ccop, what could or can they do aginst you? Untrusting people screw everyone, and personally I stay and keep aware from liars.

hsg9000-
Well, I was arguing, well... the way it is. I was assuming both sides have good lawyers and both have sufficiant/decent evidence. Of course, if one guy has a public defender, and the other has 10 attorneys at $1500/hour, then it probably won't matter (logic, papers, or anything else). But I was talking about all else being equal.

Hsg, you know two renters who had w/d that flooded?
How did you hear about these two cases to the point that you know all the way through to the insurer's final actions?

You ask: "How did you hear about these two cases"

I'm a lawyer and was involved in other legal matters in one of the building in question. I know one of the attorneys involved in the other action who represented one of the plaintiffs who had a valuable art collection damaged by the flooding.

There's a whole body of established caselaw dealing with co-op/condo/apartment residents suing their neighbors. Flooding is one of the more common negligence actions and caused by wash machines/dish washers/bathtubs, etc.

My favorite case dealt with a woman whose cat knew how to turn on the faucet in the bathroom in order to get a fresh drink. If the woman forgot to leave the drain open, the water would fill the sink and flood both her apartment and the downstairs tenants. The cat did it several times and the downstairs owners sued for damages and won. The jury found the woman negligent for failing to leave the trap open and/or close the bathroom door.

you win