Yakutsk to pay resident $7,400 for meltwater flooding of home

A Yakutsk court has ordered the city to compensate a resident 665,700 rubles (about $7,400) for damage after meltwater flooded her home, damaging floors and finishes. The city's mayor's office had previously denied responsibility.
Feb 21, 2026
0
The house involved in the flooding case was constructed in 1974.
Source:
Artem Ustyuzhanin / E1.RU
A resident of Yakutsk will be paid 665,700 rubles (about $7,400 at current rates) for her house being flooded by meltwater, which damaged the floor and interior finishes. The court found the Urban Infrastructure Maintenance Service (UIMS, or SEGKh) at fault, as reported on January 28 in the Telegram channel of the Unified Court Press Service.
The house, built in 1974 on 8th March Street, was flooded in May 2024. Water stood throughout the house, floorboards warped, linoleum blistered, and mold appeared on the wallpaper. An expert determined the damage was caused by clogged drainage gutters along the road. After assessing the damage at over half a million rubles, the affected woman filed a lawsuit.
The city mayor«s office disagreed with the claim, citing the age of the house and attributing the flooding to snowmelt. »Yakutdorstroi« (Yakut Road Construction) also disagreed, stating that installing and replacing drainage pipes was not within its authority and that it had received no instructions regarding 8th March Street.
A UIMS representative did not appear in court but in written objections asked for the claim to be dismissed, citing alleged violations during the house inspection and report drafting. At the respondent«s request, the court ordered a forensic examination, which later set the restoration cost, accounting for the house»s wear and tear, at 665,700 rubles.
The court ultimately sided with the plaintiff, ordering the UIMS to pay for material damage, expert and representative services, and the state duty. In total, the respondent will pay 719,500 rubles (about $8,000 at current rates).
The company attempted to challenge the decision by filing an appeal, but the Supreme Court found no grounds to grant it.
Read more