text: This is my opinion as the facts stand\n\nFirstly:\nwhether there is a breach of contract and in which case is the clause stated a limitation clause.  It appears that company wanted to protect itself  for damage caused to unoccupied properties. However i doubt whether this covers defective chattels (which they are contractually obligating to maintain) causing damage to property. I'm assuming you didn't make the cistern yourself and assumed it was installed.\n\nI think the real question is whether you owe a duty of care for a defective chattel causing damage to another property. Well my first thought is the snail bottle case (Donghue v Stevenson)that is good English law if the cistern was manufactured faulty. \nIf installation is faulty I think the plumber would owe a duty of care for reasonably foreseeable damage\nIf the pipes are warn out I would suggest that the damage is covered by the insurance/ or if you have a landlord reasonable wear and tear would be expressed in your tenancy agreement\n\nAgain if the damage was caused by leaky pipes within occupied premises then damage to other parts of the building are foreseeable, this is my feeling towards your issue.