Condo dwellers push back on concerns about electric vehicle fire hazards

Yahoo

12-05-2025

Live in a home governed by a condominium, co-op or homeowner's association? Have questions about what they can and cannot do? Ryan Poliakoff, an attorney and author based in Boca Raton, has answers.
First this week, our recent question regarding the requirement to install charging stations for electric vehicles sparked a lot of interest and responses from EV owners (some nicer than others), particularly concerning the relative risk of electric vehicles when compared to traditional gas and diesel-fueled vehicles.
Multiple readers pointed out that, statistically, vehicles that operate on internal combustion engines are far more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles. For example, an article published by TopGear, a well-known automotive magazine, cited a study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency reporting that fires were statistically 20 times less likely to happen in an EV than with an internal combustion engine.
An Australian study found that EV fires were 80 times less likely to occur. The article also pointed out that, if the fire risk from electric vehicles was significantly greater than that found in internal combustion engines, it would be reflected in insurance pricing, yet it generally is not.
I did some additional research on my own and found the same general reports confirmed in many other publications: Internal combustion vehicles catch fire far more frequently, though EV fires are more challenging to put out, and are potentially more severe.
While I did not research or take a position on this topic in my article (which was about the legislative process, and not EV safety, per se), it's reasonable to point out that the risk of fire from EVs is, statistically speaking, less than that posed by traditional vehicles (though again the fire itself could be somewhat more dangerous); and so, that would also support the reasonableness of the statutory obligations.
Again, I'm not an expert in vehicle safety, but I'm certain these general issues were, and will continue to be, considered by our legislators.
Question: My condominium complex has three 40-year-old, seven-story buildings with five units per floor; each building has its own water meter for the entire building. Water passes through the meter into the common water pipes suppling water to each unit. Before the water flows into a unit, it passes through a shutoff valve for that specific unit. On occasion these shutoff valves have failed, either by developing a leak, or the valve is unable to completely shut off the water due to age and/or degradation. The question is: who is responsible for the replacement of the shut-off valve?
From my prospective, because the value connects directly to the common water feed line, and because of the need to be able to control the flow of water within the building, it appears to me that the shut-off valve would be the association's responsibility. Everything after this shutoff valve would be the responsibility of the unit owner. — Signed, D.C.
Dear D.C.,
As is so often the case, we must often ignore reason or logic when it comes to evaluating the relative maintenance responsibilities between owners and community associations.
Declarations are contracts, and they are evaluated as contracts — whatever they say goes, whether it is reasonable or not. Remember, the provisions of a declaration are given a broad presumption of validity and are only rarely found unenforceable.
You have described a plumbing element that serves only a single unit but that may lie either within or outside of the boundaries of that unit.
So, first you would need to review the declaration to evaluate where the unit boundaries begin and end, so you can determine whether this valve should be defined as part of the unit or part of the common elements.
Note that a lot of boundary provisions contain specific language regarding particular elements whether they lie inside or outside of such boundaries — and that might also be relevant to your analysis.
So, for example, a boundary provision may say that all plumbing that serves only a single unit, whether inside or outside of the unit boundaries, shall be considered a part of the unit and that unit owner's maintenance responsibility.
Separately, you also need to consider the maintenance sections of the declaration that could have specific language regarding plumbing or connections, or even language similar to the above concerning plumbing, electrical and other utility lines that service a single unit.
However, this kind of language is not mandatory; I have reviewed plenty of declarations where the association is responsible for plumbing that only serves a single unit, particularly when the location of that plumbing is within a common element or between units (for example, inside a boundary wall, a structural wall, or in between the ceiling and floor of two units).
Whatever the declaration says, goes. It doesn't matter that it would make sense for the association to maintain the valve given its function; if the declaration suggests that it's a unit owner's maintenance responsibility, that will be the case, and the same is true if it says it's the association's responsibility.
Only if the language is completely ambiguous would you begin to evaluate things like the intent of the drafters (if that could even be determined). Most often, these issues can be resolved by simply doing a detailed review of the declaration.
Ryan Poliakoff, a partner at Poliakoff Backer, LLP, is a Board Certified specialist in condominium and planned development law. This column is dedicated to the memory of Gary Poliakoff. Ryan Poliakoff and Gary Poliakoff are co-authors of "New Neighborhoods — The Consumer's Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living." Email your questions to [e-mail]. Please be sure to include your location.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Is fire risk of electric vehicles greater than gas powered ones?