Home Insurance Fallen Trees

dewdrop

Now that the storms are gone I would like to know of peoples experiences with Insurance companies in situations where a tree fell and damaged a neighbours property and the main portion of the tree also fell in the neighbours property. I was a bit surprised when i looked at my own policy that it only covers damage to my property and does NOT cover the cost of the removal unless it has caused damage to my property. It seems that damage to a neighbour is a matter for their insurance but is it as clear as this.

peteb2

Your problems are two fold, if a tree blows over and is just hanging with no damage done then no insured peril operates.

If a tree falls over and damages your neighbours property this is a matter for the property owners liability of your your policy so it does not deal with getting rid of the tree at it's dealing with third party property damage and nothing else. However a claim under this would only succeed if there were negligence on your part - i.e. if the tree was not healthy, etc.

dewdrop

You might kindly clarify that when the neighbours property is damaged it is their insurance that will meet the claim and will this cover the cost of cutting up and removing the tree which cost can be quite substantial. Thanks

clint_silver

dewdrop wrote: »

You might kindly clarify that when the neighbours property is damaged it is their insurance that will meet the claim and will this cover the cost of cutting up and removing the tree which cost can be quite substantial. Thanks

I'll quote AAM here.

You are not liable (and your insurance policy will not react) for damage to a third party unless you have been neglegent. A falling Tree unless it was clear that it was a danger to others etc for a period prior to its collapse would not be classed as neglegent.

The standard insurance policies cover damage as a result of falling trees but you will only be liable for the damage to property you have legal interest in therefore your neighbour will have no option but to make a claim on his or her own policy.

The same issue arises in a fire situation where unless there has been neglegence or malace you will not be held responsible for damage to other peoples property if your house was to go on fire and the smoke or fire was to spread to other properties. (this is also covered by statute)

the rational behind this is generally to limit the posible max liability on a policy. If you were to be liable for all of these different issues the risk would be substantially more and premiums would be also much higher.

so its the storms fault not yours, unless the tree was unhealthy.

now, to get rid of the tree is a different matter, it could be argued the presence of the tree in the neighbours backyard is damage and they need to claim the cost of removal but guarantee insurance would fight that. could wait and see how they get on with it, if insurance wont pay then suggest helping neighbour get rid of it without liability.