The incident, which occurred on August 1 in the Cheongna International City area of Incheon, resulted in 23 residents being hospitalized for smoke inhalation. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
INCHEON, Aug. 13 (Korea Bizwire) – A recent electric vehicle fire in the underground parking garage of an apartment complex in Incheon, South Korea, has ignited a debate over who will be responsible for the substantial repair costs.
The incident, which occurred on August 1 in the Cheongna International City area of Incheon, resulted in 23 residents being hospitalized for smoke inhalation. The fire destroyed 87 vehicles and damaged 783 others, according to the Incheon Fire Department.
The blaze, which started in a Mercedes-Benz electric vehicle, caused extensive damage beyond the vehicles themselves. The intense heat, which reportedly exceeded 1,000 degrees Celsius, melted water pipes and various facilities in the underground structure.
As affected vehicle owners prepare to file claims with their auto insurance providers, these insurers are expected to seek compensation from the insurance company of the Mercedes-Benz where the fire originated.
The apartment complex’s management office typically carries fire insurance to cover damage to common areas like the underground parking garage.
However, past legal precedents suggest that even if the insurance company pays for the repairs, they may not be able to recover these costs from the owner of the vehicle where the fire started.
A similar case from 2011 in Seoul provides insight into how such situations have been handled legally. In that instance, a car fire in an apartment’s underground parking garage caused 59 million won in damages to common facilities.
The insurance company that covered the apartment complex’s fire damage sued the car owner for reimbursement. They argued that the 16-year-old vehicle’s battery, which had been charged 10 days prior, was defective and that the owner should have been aware of the risk.
However, the court ruled in favor of the car owner. The judgment stated that while the fire did originate from the car’s battery, there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the owner or their spouse. The court reasoned that not replacing a battery charged 10 days earlier did not constitute a failure to meet generally expected safety measures.
Furthermore, the court noted that even if the car owner or their spouse were at fault, they could not be held liable for reimbursement as they were considered insured parties under the apartment’s fire insurance policy, not third parties.
A legal expert commented on the recent Incheon fire, saying, “If the cause of the fire is determined to be a battery issue rather than owner negligence, there’s a possibility that the fire insurance company might file a claim against Mercedes-Benz or the battery manufacturer for the apartment repair costs.”
Kevin Lee (kevinlee@koreabizwire.com)
