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.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?
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.