Home & Garden

My tree fell on a neighbors house, they want me to pay for it. help

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 7th, 2020 5:58 am
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2016
3606 posts
2409 upvotes
Mississauga
Scote64 wrote: Your logic is faulty, which is why the law does not agree with you in most jurisdictions. Lack of fault by one party does not imply that their must be fault by another party. That's what "act of God" means (i.e., it's God at fault, nobody else, and God has immunity). Otherwise known as "shit happens".

In our neighbourhood the trees were there before the houses were built, and the homeowners are not allowed to cut them down by city bylaw. How could they be responsible if a healthy tree blows over in a record-setting windstorm?
As I said, I understand why laws are the way they are. This is just how I personally feel about this issue. Unfortunately in such cases, there are no winners. Yes, it is unfair for the homeowner when they are not allowed to cut the tree, and then this tree blows over. But it also sucks for the other neighbour whose house it falls on. It is unfair that he is out of money and his insurance renewal shoots through the roof for no fault of his own. It is unfair on both parties.

At lease in this case, OP should have offered to cover the deductible, or at least a part of it as a gesture to make it a bit fair for both parties. But since they did not, I find it hard to disagree with how the insurance companies have decided to proceed.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jun 30, 2009
905 posts
383 upvotes
Vancouver
What I've looked up agrees with Scote64: if your property is damaged by a healthy tree falling in a storm, your insurance deals with it. Where the tree came from doesn't matter if it's healthy. A dead standing tree is a different story, as then it'd be the responsibility of whoever owned it to have had it removed, as it was a hazard.

Is it unfair that your premiums increase through no fault of your own? Yes, but that's how insurance companies make their money. You pay for coverage, and in the event you use your coverage, you pay more for ever having used it. It's the same story if some random dude came along, burned your house and is never caught. It's not your fault, and there's no one to pass the buck on to because the dude was never found, so your insurance covers it and you pay more premiums for making a claim.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2009
5768 posts
3612 upvotes
Seems there are some weird “anti-tree” sentiments in here muddying the waters. If a tornado goes by and sends my shed or my patio furniture or my car through my neighbours window , should my insurance pay for that? I think not (other than my own damages of course )
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
7941 posts
5483 upvotes
Victoria, BC
Arrgh wrote: Yes. There is a "have no tree" option. I chose that no tree option.

We had a mature pine tree in front of the house. In the ice storm a few years ago, some trees like that fell, one damaged a house, another one cut the power line, etc. We did apply for a permit and did cut it down. Yes we had to plant another tree. We DID have a choice. Our neighbour two doors down, followed us and also cut their tree. They also had the option.

Look at it from another point of view. If your neighbour's tree or something else, was blown to damage your house or car, would you say to your neighbour it's not your fault. It's the fault of God. You pay to fix the damages, and the increased premium, because your neighbour has no responsibility.
Well, that's how it works, whether you seem to think so or not. They call it an Act of God for a reason (duh). If their healthy tree was blown over and damaged my property, then I would make a claim and be done with it.
Banned
User avatar
Nov 28, 2016
22791 posts
3321 upvotes
Out west
No matter what, people will sue. Alot will wait for any opportunity to sue, like this.

Being your tree, why wouldnt your insurance pay for it? Act of god isnt covered?. Isnt a tornado an act of god, isnt a hail storm an act of god,, isnt a flood. Are those things not covered by insurance. More people that have lost everything in a natural disaster, they have no covereage?

What about vehicles crushed by city trees? Act of god? Who pays for that, the car owner or the city?
Member
Jan 29, 2006
429 posts
78 upvotes
Toronto
I looked into removing tree's in an area I was looking to purchase a home from,

The city makes it pretty hard to cut down the tree. First off, if the tree is over a certain diameter, you need to replace it with like 2-5 trees or something like that.

plus, removal at your own cost from a licensed arborist.

trees are a nuisance.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 27, 2007
8257 posts
5758 upvotes
pepsi86 wrote: I looked into removing tree's in an area I was looking to purchase a home from,

The city makes it pretty hard to cut down the tree. First off, if the tree is over a certain diameter, you need to replace it with like 2-5 trees or something like that.

plus, removal at your own cost from a licensed arborist.

trees are a nuisance.
Except if the arborist says the tree is dying or a hazard, then you don't have to plant new trees
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2018
9652 posts
10924 upvotes
Vancouver
WikkiWikki wrote: No matter what, people will sue. Alot will wait for any opportunity to sue, like this.

Being your tree, why wouldnt your insurance pay for it? Act of god isnt covered?. Isnt a tornado an act of god, isnt a hail storm an act of god,, isnt a flood. Are those things not covered by insurance. More people that have lost everything in a natural disaster, they have no covereage?

What about vehicles crushed by city trees? Act of god? Who pays for that, the car owner or the city?
Lots of things aren't covered by insurance. Insurance companies are experts at careful wording to weasel out of every possible claim.

But you will probably find that most home insurance companies will cover falling tree damage. The "act of God" part just means that they can't attempt to recover the money from some other responsible party. However you will often find that the cost of tree removal is not covered or only partly covered. That is, they will pay to repair your house or fence after the tree is removed, but they might pay only $500 of a $3000 cost to cut the tree up and haul it away.

As for city tree falling on your car, your car insurance will pay, assuming you have comprehensive coverage. The city will not pay (act of God again), plus you will find that cities are also excellent at weaseling out of any possible liability for anything.
Deal Fanatic
Feb 4, 2010
7156 posts
7138 upvotes
kingkam92 wrote: Update.
Their insurance told my insurance that it does not matter it was an act of god. They are going the route saying "it was already a dead /dying tree". The fact that my insurance is not fighting back has me extremely scared.

My tree was perfectly normal, yes it was large, and had green leaves on all of the branches.

1. Since I moved in (3.5 years ago), no one came to ask me to cut my branches down. (It was not a bother to them).
2. I never received a letter saying I should cut down my branches or tree.

Suddenly the tree falls, and they claim that it was a dead tree / dying tree to their insurance. I mean WTF.

I wanted my tree tested, but after the way my adjuster spoke to me, it seemed like they are going to brush it off. They will obviously have a contractor come by and cut the tree. I also think my neighbors insurance will get a full refund for the damages as well from my insurance.

I also called the city, and they won't test the tree for me. Since the tree has been lying there for over a week now. How can someone say it was a dead tree ? I mean it has been dead for a week now.
So to clarify, does this mean your insurance company is off the hook and you would have to pay out of pocket? If yes, that might be way the adjuster isn't advocating on your behalf because typically the claimant has the burden of proof. What insurance company are you with? What did the adjuster say about the tree? I'm assuming you have to call someone to remove the tree so perhaps use an arborist and that way the can tell you what happened with the tree....note most tree removal companies don't know that much about tree ecology so try to get one that knows what they're talking about. BTW can you see any see any rot in the middle of the trunk from where it split off or any where else?
Sr. Member
Nov 30, 2012
975 posts
1572 upvotes
MONTR
hierophant wrote: So to clarify, does this mean your insurance company is off the hook and you would have to pay out of pocket? If yes, that might be way the adjuster isn't advocating on your behalf because typically the claimant has the burden of proof. What insurance company are you with? What did the adjuster say about the tree? I'm assuming you have to call someone to remove the tree so perhaps use an arborist and that way the can tell you what happened with the tree....note most tree removal companies don't know that much about tree ecology so try to get one that knows what they're talking about. BTW can you see any see any rot in the middle of the trunk from where it split off or any where else?
I get the feeling the neighbors are looking at this thread as well. My paranoia.
I would tell you the insurance companies name and post pictures of the tree, but it's not safe for me at the moment.
Sr. Member
Dec 1, 2006
953 posts
137 upvotes
Toronto
my father-in law has massive tree on front of his house. He's been wanting to cut it down because the tree sap goes over the cars all the time. He's willing replace it with a different tree that's smaller.

IF this tree falls onto the neighbours house, whos responsible?
Sr. Member
Nov 30, 2012
975 posts
1572 upvotes
MONTR
bloodylankan wrote: my father-in law has massive tree on front of his house. He's been wanting to cut it down because the tree sap goes over the cars all the time. He's willing replace it with a different tree that's smaller.

IF this tree falls onto the neighbours house, whos responsible?
Honestly, before it falls, I suggest you cut it asap. You don't want the headache over 1000$ or 1500$.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2018
9652 posts
10924 upvotes
Vancouver
kingkam92 wrote: Honestly, before it falls, I suggest you cut it asap. You don't want the headache over 1000$ or 1500$.
Depends where you live I guess. The last time we had a big tree removed, the quotes ranged from $2500 - $4500. Not even getting into what the city is going to require for a permit and tree replacement. I understand from others around here that they also require you to pay for an arborist to inspect the new trees you planted annually for 5 years to ensure that they are healthy and that you haven't removed them.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2018
9652 posts
10924 upvotes
Vancouver
kingkam92 wrote: I would tell you the insurance companies name and post pictures of the tree, but it's not safe for me at the moment.
You might want to take a lot of pictures before anything gets cut up or removed, of the tree, the stump, the damage etc.. It's hard to argue a point without proof later regarding something that has disappeared.

I don't think your home insurance company will take any action on their own if you have not officially opened a claim. However after you open a claim, they can decide to settle regardless of the merits of the case if they think it will save them money on legal fees, leaving you on the hook to pay for deductibles and future insurance increases even though the other party's claim would have ultimately been dismissed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
7941 posts
5483 upvotes
Victoria, BC
Scote64 wrote: Depends where you live I guess. The last time we had a big tree removed, the quotes ranged from $2500 - $4500. Not even getting into what the city is going to require for a permit and tree replacement. I understand from others around here that they also require you to pay for an arborist to inspect the new trees you planted annually for 5 years to ensure that they are healthy and that you haven't removed them.
Holy shit. We had 38 big dead ash trees removed from our property in Ottawa for $12,000 plus tax (included stump grinding, etc). I'm from the West Coast (Victoria) originally - but I had no idea that tree removal was as overpriced as the properties out there lol.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 9, 2010
3149 posts
1334 upvotes
Windsor
kingkam92 wrote: Update.
Their insurance told my insurance that it does not matter it was an act of god. They are going the route saying "it was already a dead /dying tree". The fact that my insurance is not fighting back has me extremely scared.

My tree was perfectly normal, yes it was large, and had green leaves on all of the branches.

1. Since I moved in (3.5 years ago), no one came to ask me to cut my branches down. (It was not a bother to them).
2. I never received a letter saying I should cut down my branches or tree.

Suddenly the tree falls, and they claim that it was a dead tree / dying tree to their insurance. I mean WTF.

I wanted my tree tested, but after the way my adjuster spoke to me, it seemed like they are going to brush it off. They will obviously have a contractor come by and cut the tree. I also think my neighbors insurance will get a full refund for the damages as well from my insurance.

I also called the city, and they won't test the tree for me. Since the tree has been lying there for over a week now. How can someone say it was a dead tree ? I mean it has been dead for a week now.
The neighbour's insurance is obviously going to try and claim the tree was dying; if it wasn't, they have no leg to stand on for denying the claim. Also, they're going on what the neighbour said, which is obviously that the tree is dead. They, however, will have to prove it was visibly dying somehow, which seems impossible. It does suck that your insurance company doesn't care, but it's their job not to care until they're forced to care.

1. That's good, but probably not fantastic proof
2. Also good, but not exactly proof of a healthy tree either.

As someone mentioned, take a million pics of the downed tree, then back them up ... and backup that backup. Make sure they're original quality; don't want Google ruining the fidelity of your backups to save space. The burden of proof that the tree was actually dead should be your neighbour's job, but if you can prove the tree isn't dead (which currently sucks, since the tree is missing many leaves), then you're good. Having a legitimate tree specialist come by and put in writing that the tree is healthy would probably help.

How will they prove it's dead? If the tree broke at the trunk, and there is rotting at that point (typically in the center, and it would be very obvious). If it ripped out of the ground roots and all, the tree was healthy.
One who is offended by truth, has no place among those who seek wisdom.
Sr. Member
Nov 30, 2012
975 posts
1572 upvotes
MONTR
TomLafinsky wrote: OP could go to Google maps. If Google took pics when it was summer than it would show a healthy tree. Also, best place for backup of data is on a few discs.
I have already done this.
Yes there are healthy greens leafs on the trees, on 95% of the branches. The branches were long though, but does not mean they can claim the tree dead.
ty
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2009
5768 posts
3612 upvotes
kingkam92 wrote: Honestly, before it falls, I suggest you cut it asap. You don't want the headache over 1000$ or 1500$.
Wtf. Big trees are a gem. Don’t cut it down out of fear of some freak accident. Sheesh.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2009
5768 posts
3612 upvotes
pepsi86 wrote: I looked into removing tree's in an area I was looking to purchase a home from,

The city makes it pretty hard to cut down the tree. First off, if the tree is over a certain diameter, you need to replace it with like 2-5 trees or something like that.

plus, removal at your own cost from a licensed arborist.

trees are a nuisance.
City makes it hard to cut down trees because trees are extremely important. Not a nuisance.
Member
Jan 29, 2006
429 posts
78 upvotes
Toronto
fdl wrote: City makes it hard to cut down trees because trees are extremely important. Not a nuisance.
I don't mind evergreens, those guys r cool, except for all the sap. but them deciduous trees doe, they go around itting leaves everywhere like it's their right. off with their heads i say

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)