51 questions, 51 straight answers.

Condominium insurance is building and liability cover taken out for the commonly owned parts of the house – roof, façade, stairwell, building systems, shared rooms – with the building community itself as the policyholder. Home insurance, by contrast, protects the individual flats' private property and contents. The two don't replace each other – they complement each other.

No law makes it generally compulsory, so it is not mandatory. Two common sources of expectation exist, though: banks typically require building insurance for loans, and the building's own organisational and operational rules (SZMSZ) may prescribe it. In practice, most buildings insure not out of obligation but out of sound risk management.

It differs from building to building: the boundaries are set by the building's deed of foundation, complemented by the house rules. The roof, the façade, the stairwell and the main pipe runs (risers) are typically common – but the classification of windows, balconies or radiators can differ by building. That's why every good quote request starts with reviewing the documents.

The policyholder is the condominium itself as a legal entity; the policy is handled by the property manager or the management company. Decisions on taking out or switching cover typically belong to the general meeting, or the manager acts under a mandate set out in the house rules – the framework always comes from the building's own documents.

Partly: the structural, commonly owned elements of your flat may fall under the building's policy, but the privately owned parts and your contents do not. The exact boundary depends on the building's founding documents and the policy's content – it's worth knowing both, and sizing your own home insurance accordingly.

In a loss, the full cost of restoration falls on the community – through common charges, special levies or a loan. A larger fire or water loss can burden the building's finances for years, and in liability cases the community faces a third party's claim as well. Being uncovered is not a saving – it's postponed risk.

Insurers in Hungary operate under strict MNB supervision and capital requirements, which keeps the risk of insolvency low from the outset. If an insurer did run into difficulty, its book of policies would be handled within a statutory framework, under regulatory supervision – that's a regulatory matter, not a broker one. In such a situation, the insurer's and the MNB's official announcements are always the first place to look, and as its broker I do my best to flag developments to the building too.

No. Indemnity insurance pays for the actual loss, and if the same interest – for example the structural parts of your flat – is covered both by the building's policy and by your own home insurance, that is multiple insurance under Section 6:459 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.): the injured party may report the claim to either insurer (or to both), the insurer approached pays according to its own policy conditions and sum insured, and the insurers share the burden proportionately between themselves – in total, nobody receives more than the loss. In practice the two policies rarely cover exactly the same thing: condominium (homeowners' association) insurance covers the commonly owned parts of the building and, under many policy conditions, also extends to the structural parts of the flats, whereas home insurance covers the contents of the flat, the owner's liability and the owner's own part of the building – exactly where the boundary lies can be read from the condominium's deed of foundation and from the policy conditions of the two policies, and it varies from building to building and from insurer to insurer. So a resident who pays a double premium does so not in the hope that “the insurer will pay twice”, but because the two policies have not been coordinated: if the building's policy also covers the building parts of the flat, a lower sum insured for the building part may be enough in your own policy (although for a mortgage the bank may require separate building cover), whereas contents and liability cover come only from your own insurance. In the event of a claim, report it to the insurer whose policy covers the damaged element, and where the boundary is disputed, to both – the claim form typically asks whether other insurance exists, and this has to be disclosed – and bear in mind that each policy applies its own deductible and conditions.

Taking out or switching insurance typically requires a general meeting decision or a mandate granted in the house rules. The exact rules on powers are set by the building's deed of foundation and SZMSZ – the agenda and the draft resolution should be prepared to match them.

Three things are needed: a clear comparison table of the quotes, a draft resolution text, and preparation for the owners' questions. The good news: I provide all three ready-made – the decision-support pack is part of the service, with samples on the Resources page.

The most common objection is “why should I pay for someone else's damage” – the answer is the logic of communal cover: the building's structure is shared, so are its losses, and anyone can be the next one affected. A factual table, calm Q&A and a transparent premium within the common charges all help. In the end the general meeting decides – by majority.

In many buildings, yes: the possibility and procedure of written ballots can be regulated by the house rules. It's a useful tool when the renewal date doesn't align with the meeting season – but the framework and validity rules always come from the building's own regulations.

The manager typically prepares the decision, handles the policy, manages the building's claims and watches the renewal date. Good practice is documentation: quotes, resolutions and claims correspondence in one place. The manager's professional (officer's) liability is a separate topic – felelosseg.biz (in Hungarian) covers it.

The process is the same with a managing agent: they provide the data and their knowledge of the building, I provide the market tendering and the decision-support materials. The roles divide cleanly, and the general meeting receives the same thing: a clear table and an orderly proposal.

No – at the general meeting, owners (or their proxies) vote; tenants have no independent voting right on condominium matters, insurance included. That said, tenants can still be affected, since the contents of a flat typically fall outside the building's policy – it's worth telling them that their own belongings are best covered by their own home insurance. That's a separate matter from the general meeting's decision, but closely connected to it in practice.

The March cancellation option was introduced in 2023 by an emergency government decree, and today it is contained in Section 124/C of the Insurance Act (Bit.): a property insurance contract concluded for an indefinite period and relating to residential property can be cancelled by the policyholder – in addition to cancellation at the renewal date – every year in March, free of charge, by a written declaration reaching the insurer by 31 March, with effect from 30 April of that year. The wording of the rule does not restrict the policyholder to natural persons, and in market practice several insurers and brokers expressly apply it to condominium (homeowners' association) insurance as well. However, since the legislation does not define “residential property” in detail, and the information published by insurers and by the MNB (Hungary's central bank and financial supervisor) speaks of “home insurance”, the building's insurer may interpret it differently, so before cancelling, ask the insurer in writing whether it accepts cancellation of the condominium policy in the March cancellation window; if it does not, the building's policy can be cancelled in the general way under Section 6:466 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), in writing, to the end of the insurance period, at least 30 days in advance. Two things are different for a building than for a flat in any case: cancellation requires a decision by the building – a resolution of the general meeting of owners, or an authorisation given to the condominium manager (közös képviselő) in the organisational and operating rules (SZMSZ) – and for termination on 30 April, cover under the new contract has to be timed so that the building is not left without cover for a single day; where there is a mortgage (loan security) clause, the bank also has to be notified. Also bear in mind that the insurer may reclaim the long-term discount (loyalty discount) in line with the policy conditions, that a fixed-term contract cannot be cancelled this way, and that the March window applies to the residents' own home insurance policies separately, independently of the building's policy.

Yes, because the two contracts do not cover the same thing: the policyholder of a home insurance policy is the resident, and it covers their own flat (separate property), their contents and their own liability, whereas the building's policy covers the commonly owned parts – roof, façade, floor slabs, stairwell, riser pipes, lift, boiler – and the liability of the building as a community, for example if falling plaster damages a parked car or injures a passer-by. If a storm takes off the roof, thirty home insurance policies do not add up to the roof damage: each of them pays at most for water ingress in its own flat, and repairing the roof remains a common cost, which under the Condominium Act the co-owners bear in proportion to their ownership shares – or according to a different proportion set in the organisational and operating rules (SZMSZ). Some home insurance policies also provide some cover for the common parts in proportion to the ownership share, but this differs from insurer to insurer, residents' contracts have different sums insured, some of them lapse or are underinsured, and in a common loss thirty insurers would have to be dealt with – this does not provide uniform, predictable cover, and home insurance policies typically do not cover liability losses of the building as a community. Nor do the two covers duplicate each other: the building's policy serves the common parts and the building's liability, the home insurance serves the inside of the flat, the contents and the resident's liability, so the resident does not pay twice for the same thing; where the two contracts do overlap, under the multiple-insurance rule of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.) the loss is paid once and the insurers share it proportionally among themselves. So in the debate at the general meeting the question is not which of the two is needed, but making sure that the building's policy has an up-to-date sum insured and scope of cover – residents can check this on the basis of the policy and the policy conditions.

The main factors: the building's structure and age, its condition, the insured floor area, the chosen scope of cover and limits, the deductible, and the building's claims history. A responsible premium can only follow a survey – which is why you won't find premium figures on this site.

The sum insured is the upper limit of the cover, and it should follow the rebuild cost – not the market price. Good sizing rests on real floor areas and knowledge of the structure; when in doubt, expert help is worth it.

If the sum insured falls below the building's true rebuild value, the insurer may apply proportional settlement in a claim: it pays only the share of the loss that the sum bears to the true value. That's a product fact, not a scare tactic – and it can be prevented with regular value maintenance.

Indexation is the annual adjustment of sum and premium, following changes in construction costs. It is typically the simplest protection against underinsurance – before accepting, check whether the sum genuinely stays at the building's true value. The decision is the building's; we can review it together if it is warranted, or on request.

The deductible is the first part of any loss carried by the building: a higher deductible typically means a lower premium but more self-retention in claims. The right answer depends on the building's claims pattern and reserves: frequent small claims argue for a lower deductible, stable reserves and rare claims for a higher one.

The premium typically forms part of the common charges, paid annually or in instalments. Transparency helps: residents should see what the policy covers and roughly what it costs per flat. I provide a ready-made owner information template for that – on the Resources page.

Not directly: the building pays the premium as a single sum from the common-charge pool, and the policy stays in force for as long as that happens. One owner's arrears don't by themselves end the cover – that's primarily an internal matter for the community, to be pursued and collected under the condominium rules. That said, persistently high total arrears can put the building's liquidity, and with it the security of premium payments, in question – which is why it's one of the things a manager should keep an eye on.

The backbone is fire and natural-peril cover for the structure, joined by the covers of everyday condominium life: water damage from pipes, glass breakage, building liability, burglary and vandalism in common areas – plus riders by the building's features, from lifts to solar panels. The exact scope differs by insurer: the policy terms prevail.

Water damage from pipes: bursts, leaking risers, blockage floods. That's why the content of the water-damage cover – exploration, restoration, exclusions – must be crystal clear, and why prevention matters: the state of the risers shapes both the claims and the premium.

For when the building causes damage to someone else: falling render injures a passer-by, a dropping tile breaks a windscreen, a visitor slips on a slippery staircase. In such cases the building is liable – the liability cover handles this risk, which is why its limit is a key question.

Typically yes: machinery-type damage to lifts, boilers and pumps can be handled with riders. A common condition is regular maintenance – so the maintenance contract matters not only technically but for the insurance too.

Solar panels raise two questions: is their value included in the sum insured (declared to the insurer), and which perils does the cover extend to (storm, hail, surge). When installing, notify the insurer – otherwise the sum may stay below reality.

Many packages offer a vandalism cover, typically with an annual limit and documentation requirements. Because of the limits it's only a partial remedy for repeated nuisance – with regular vandalism, prevention (lighting, closed entrance, cameras within the legal rules) matters at least as much.

Typically yes, as a rider or as part of existing building-systems/property cover – but it's always worth flagging it to the insurer explicitly, since the charger's technical specifics (power rating, how it's installed) can affect the terms. It's also worth clarifying what counts as covered in the event of fire or surge damage. Checking in with the insurer both before and after installation is good practice, much like with solar panels.

This is a real and growing risk in many buildings today: a lithium battery failing while charging can start a severe, fast-spreading fire in an enclosed storage space. Fire cover typically extends to a blaze of this origin too, but the exact terms and any exclusions are always set by the policy – it's worth asking about this specifically. Prevention is also in the building's hands: a ventilated, fire-separated charging area and informing residents reduce the risk regardless of the policy's details.

A direct lightning strike – when lightning hits the building and causes fire, burning or cracking – is part of the basic cover of condominium insurance policies; when the lift, the intercom, the camera system, the boiler controls, the pumps or the solar inverter stop working, however, this is typically not such a case but the secondary (induced) effect of lightning: an overvoltage surge running through the network destroys the electronics. Hungarian policy conditions treat this differently: in some conditions it is part of the basic cover – often with a separate limit – while in others it is a separate add-on, and which common equipment is covered, up to what amount and with what deductible varies by insurer – some policies pay only for direct lightning damage unless an extra premium is paid, so the condominium manager should check in the policy whether the building has cover for overvoltage or for the secondary effects of lightning, and with what limit. For the claim, insurers usually ask for the service technician's expert opinion confirming that the fault was caused by overvoltage, and they may also compare the date of the loss with lightning data, so it is worth keeping a record of when the equipment stopped working, together with the service report and the repair invoice. When rejecting a claim, the insurer may point to a missing lightning protection inspection or to missed maintenance, so it is worth keeping the inspection reports to hand as well. Prevention means a surge arrester built into the common distribution board, which – alongside the insurance cover – also reduces the risk of equipment going down.

It is not the same as escape of water from pipes, and this is the main source of disappointment: under most conditions, escape-of-water cover applies to damage caused by water escaping because water, wastewater or heating pipes or tanks break, crack or develop holes, whereas flooding caused by sewage that backs up because of a blocked drain and wells up through the floor drain or the cellar drain is a separate event – under many Hungarian conditions it is excluded or covered only by a separate add-on (under a name such as “sewer backflow”, “flooding” or similar), elsewhere it is part of the basic cover (some conditions classify water escaping because of a blockage under the pipe-burst event, and sewage flowing back from the sewer during a cloudburst under the cloudburst cover), so it varies from insurer to insurer, and only the building's own conditions will tell. Clearing the blockage itself (cleaning the drain, the camera inspection) is, under most conditions, not an insured loss but maintenance, which is charged to the common costs (közös költség); some products name it as a separate, limited add-on (“reimbursement of blockage clearance”, dugulás-elhárítás térítése), and the assistance service may cover urgent blockage clearance up to the limit set in the policy. The consequential damage – soaked walls, ruined floors and common rooms, traces of sewage forced up into the flats – can be paid if the triggering event is covered under the conditions; the residents' belongings stored in the cellar cannot be paid from the building's policy, only from their own home insurance, if that extends to the storage room. Mitigating the loss is the building's responsibility: the primary route for reporting the claim is the insurer's claims line, but before that the sewage has to be stopped, photos taken and the cause of the blockage (a foreign object, roots, a collapsed drain, backflow from the public sewer) recorded by a specialist, because if the cause lies in the utility company's sewer, a claim can also be raised against the utility company. How escape-of-water cover works is described in the article “Escape of water: the most common claim in condominiums”; if the building's conditions exclude backflow, it is worth deciding before the renewal date whether to add the missing add-on or to switch to a different policy – if you let me know before the renewal date, I prepare the comparison.

Typically not from the basic cover: escape-of-water cover pays for the damage the escaping water causes in the building, for tracing the fault and, under many conditions, for repairing the pipe, but several conditions expressly exclude the value of the spilled water, that is, the water and sewerage charges for the water that escaped; elsewhere the basic cover includes it with a low annual limit. Some conditions offer “insurance of escaped water” (elfolyt víz biztosítása) as a separate, optional add-on which – with a limit, often with a deductible – typically pays for the above-average extra consumption that is demonstrably linked to the pipe burst, based on the water utility's bill or statement and the invoice for the repair; whether the building's policy includes such a line, and what the exact calculation method is, varies from insurer to insurer, so the conditions need to be checked. Independently of the insurance, there is also some room for manoeuvre with the water utility: the government decree implementing the Water Utility Services Act sets a separate rule for calculating the sewerage charge when the in-building drinking-water network fails – if, according to the utility's on-site inspection and report, the escaped water did not go into the sewer but seeped away into the surroundings, the wastewater volume is determined on the basis of the average consumption of an earlier period; this is conditional on reporting the failure without delay and is subject to a deadline –, whereas the drinking-water charge typically has to be paid for the metered quantity, although some utilities may grant leniency under their terms of business; so it is worth reporting the fault to the utility without delay as well. With a hidden pipe burst, early detection is the most valuable form of loss mitigation: regularly reading the common water meter, watching for jumps in consumption and turning off the main stopcock until the leak is traced are the building's responsibility, and the conditions also expect loss mitigation. The primary route for reporting the claim is the insurer's claims line; the process of tracing the leak, repairs and splitting the invoices is described in the article “Escape of water in practice: tracing the leak, repairs, who pays for what”, and it is worth deciding on adding the missing add-on before the renewal date.

Mitigation and documentation: stop the damage spreading if you safely can (for example, close the main valve), and take photos. The primary route for reporting is the insurer's claims line or online claims portal – that's the fastest path. Claims on the building's policy are typically reported by the property manager.

Claims affecting the building's policy are typically reported by the manager or the managing agent; damage to a flat by its owner to their own home insurer. Where they overlap – say, a leak from above – it's best to report on both lines in parallel and leave the liability question to the claims process.

The classic trio: if the cause is the neighbour's privately owned pipework or negligence, their liability cover typically steps in; if a commonly owned riser is the source, the building's policy; and for settling your own damage, your own home insurance can serve too, recovering afterwards from whoever is liable. The claims process gives the exact answer – the key is knowing all three routes.

Promising a specific deadline wouldn't be honest – processing depends on the nature of the claim, the completeness of the documents and the insurer's procedures. What the building can do for speed: precise reporting, complete documentation, a reachable contact person. If a case drags on unjustifiably or becomes disputed, I step in and help the building as its broker.

First, understand the reasoning precisely: which part of the policy terms it relies on. Then you can respond with missing documents, additional evidence or a request for review. In stalled or disputed cases I help the building with the insurer – that's part of my service.

Everything that proves the event and the loss: photos and videos of the damage and its source, dates, witnesses, the mitigation steps, invoices and estimates, all correspondence. Keep them in one place in the building's insurance file – in a claim, an orderly archive is worth gold.

It depends on the specific case and the policy terms: ordinary carelessness typically doesn't rule out payment, but gross negligence or long-neglected maintenance can be grounds for exemption or exclusion at some insurers. Claims handling pays particular attention to documenting the circumstances in such cases – which is why an accurate description and photos matter. The question of liability between the building and the resident involved can also be separate from the insurance payout, and the claims process gives the final answer on that.

There are three separate parties involved, and the direction of the damage decides which contract comes into play. If the tenant causes damage in the common areas – breaks the front gate, floods the shared cellar – the building's property insurance pays for its own loss in line with the policy conditions if the event is an insured event (for example, if the policy includes vandalism or water-damage cover), and the insurer can then recover the amount paid, under the recourse rule of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), from the tenant who caused the damage and who is personally liable for it because of their own conduct for which they are at fault. This can be settled, in the tenant's place, by the personal liability cover of the tenant's own home insurance; the liability section of the owner's home insurance typically does not extend to the tenant, because the insured persons are the policyholder, the insured person and relatives living in the same household as them – the tenant is a third party unless the conditions expressly include them. The owner is not automatically liable for damage caused by their tenant, only if their own failure – say, a pipe in the flat that they neglected – also contributed; at the same time, under the Condominium Act, the house rules must be observed by whoever is using the flat at the time – including the tenant – and the co-owner must take the necessary measures to ensure that the person to whom they have handed over the use of their flat observes the Act's rules on use. In the opposite direction, if the building causes damage to the tenant's belongings – a leaking riser soaks their furniture – the tenant's own contents insurance is the first port of call (some condominium policy conditions also treat the contents of the lawful users of the flats as insured; this is worth checking on the building's policy), while the building's liability insurance pays the loss of the tenant, as a third party, if the building is liable for the damage under the Civil Code; the owner's home insurance typically does not cover the tenant's contents. As a landlord, it is therefore worth including in the tenancy agreement that the tenant maintains their own contents and liability insurance, and also reporting the letting to your own insurer, because under the policy conditions letting the property is a change that must be reported.

Hungarian condominium insurance conditions typically allow 2–8 working days from becoming aware of the loss to report it – one market policy wording, for example, allows 5 working days – but a delay is not in itself grounds for rejection. Under the insurance chapter of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk., Section 6:453), the insurer's obligation to pay does not arise if the insured fails to fulfil the duty to report and provide information and, as a result, material circumstances can no longer be established; the conditions repeat the same rule, which means the insurer would have to specify which circumstance it was unable to clarify because of the delay – if the cause, time and extent of the loss can still be established afterwards (photos, a service or fire brigade report, invoices), the delay typically has no legal consequences. If the report was delayed because the condominium manager was on holiday or ill, the loss should still be reported without delay via the insurer's claims line or online platform, in a verifiable way, briefly stating the reason for the delay, and the site should not be altered before the inspection beyond what is needed to mitigate the loss. If the insurer rejects the claim solely on the grounds that the deadline was missed, ask in writing for a statement of reasons specifying which material circumstance could no longer be established; if it cannot name one, the route is the insurer's complaints procedure and then – since a condominium is not a consumer, the Financial Arbitration Board (PBT) does not act in its case – the court; where a case gets stuck or is disputed, I help where I can.

A broker is an independent intermediary who represents not an insurer but their client – here, the building community: comparing several insurers' quotes and preparing the decision. The activity is supervised by the Hungarian National Bank; my registration number can be verified via the footer of this site.

I charge the building no fee for the advice and the tendering – the intermediary's remuneration is paid by the insurer. That's how this market works, and I say it openly: the building knows exactly how its broker makes a living, and the right to decide always stays with the community.

None “in general”: I don't promote brands. I compare the quotes collected for the building's data by content – scope, sums, deductibles, limits, exclusions – and that table is what the general meeting receives. I explain the arguments; the decision is the community's.

Yes, that's a common starting point: reviewing the current policy shows where the sums stand, what the scope covers, and whether anything needs doing. It doesn't always end in switching – sometimes the right answer is maintaining the existing contract.

No: most of the process runs by phone and online – from the first conversation to the quote table – so I can work with buildings anywhere in Hungary. And the general meeting materials are written documents by nature.

With a 20-minute, free conversation: we assess where the building's insurance stands, when the renewal date falls, and what the goal is. Then comes a short data list from the building's documents, and the tendering begins. You'll find booking on the booking page – no obligation.

Not with well-timed switching: the right order is to have the new, accepted offer in hand first, and only then cancel the old policy, so the new cover starts at exactly the moment the old one ends. A gap typically comes from cancelling first and only looking for a new insurer afterwards – proper planning of the process avoids that. We plan and oversee this timeline together throughout the switch.