Storm Damage Liability?

ArcadiaJunction · 11-02-2025 10:08PM #1

During the recent storms a friend of mine had a tree blown over in his backyard that fell on a neighbours large steel shed and destroyed about 50% of it. My friend has Third Party Liability, but the farmer who owns the shed, had no insurance at all and has told my friend that he must pay for the building of a new shed no matter what. My friend already paid a significant sum to have the fallen tree removed from the farmers shed. I have been told (in classic man down the pub manner) that ultimately it is the famer's problem for not having insurance on his own building. That the removal of the tree was enough. Basically my friend feels very intimdated by the situation and is worried his life savings are to be wiped out, and yet he was the one with insurance. He immidiatly informed the farmer of the damage. Called his insurance company and the asseror came out. My friend is carrying all the burden on this, not to mention the tree was healthy and had been planted on his property before he moved there. Should he go to a lawyer and seek legal advice?

Does anyone know what the legal aspects are in relation to this kind of thing? Thanks in advance.

Allinall · 11-02-2025 10:11PM

How will he lose his life savings if he has insurance cover?

Let him claim off his policy.

It’s exactly what it’s for.

the_pen_turner · 11-02-2025 10:16PM

rephrase the question to a tile flew of your neighbours house and through your window. would you be happy if they came around and swept up the glass and took away the tile. like hell you would. you would want a new window glass fitted. why is a tree distroying a shed any diferent. your tree distroyed the shed , end of. pay to fix it or claim on the insurance to pay for it

Deagol · 11-02-2025 10:42PM

No point going to solicitor - he's responsible for the damage and must make good the damage his tree has done. He has insurance according to you so I don't see what the issue is?

baxterooneydoody · 11-02-2025 10:55PM

His tree, his fault

ArcadiaJunction · 11-02-2025 10:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123161091#Comment_123161091

I think he is concerned the insurance won't cover the full repair. People have been telling him an Act of God and it won't be covered. He showed me the policy and it did say storm damage was covered and he had Third Party.

el Fenomeno · 11-02-2025 10:59PM

I think it's far less clear cut if it was a healthy, undamaged tree with no obvious signs of being a threat.

If the tree was perfectly healthy and was only felled due to a status red wind warning where parts of the country saw the highest gusts on record, you may not be liable.

ArcadiaJunction · 11-02-2025 11:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123160969#Comment_123160969

True but it is an ethical or a legal issue? By the same token the famer's uninsured shed could have blown on to my friend's property and caused significant damage. Was the farmer not irresponsible for not having his own insurance which he stated was because 'acts of god are not covered.' As this was his excuse for not being insured.

ArcadiaJunction · 11-02-2025 11:13PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123161178#Comment_123161178

The tree was healthy and he said the assessor from the insurance company even stated such when he examined and took photos of it. It was Storm Darragh, the one in December. Which while not as bad as the Storm Ewoyen was fairly ferocious.

Firblog · 12-02-2025 12:01AM

Doesn't your house insurance only cover damage to your own property?

Lenar3556 · 12-02-2025 01:00AM

Would be interested to hear the outcome.

I would be surprised if the insurance policy will be in any rush to pay out for a neighbours shed unless there is evidence of negligence on the part the policy holder (the friend). The man down the pub might not be too far wrong.

Lots of insurance policies cover matters arising from ‘acts of god’. Indeed if the policy holders own roof was damaged in the storm it likely would be covered.

I think it would be helpful for your friend to receive legal advice to help him better understand the position, and how best to address it. Clearly it’s unfortunate that this situation has arisen with his neighbour, but he shouldn’t feel intimidated.

Alkers · 12-02-2025 01:27AM

Just pass all the correspondence to the insurance company and leave them at it. Don't get involved or introduce legal advice or anything like thay

Victor · 12-02-2025 01:52AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123161384#Comment_123161384

'Normally' you need an "insurable interest" (that you will suffer loss is X is damaged / destroyed) for something. You don't absolutely need to own it.

In this case, the policy has a third party liability / public liability clause that might cover damage that the insured person has responsibility for.

Peregrinus · 12-02-2025 03:00AM

The general rule here is that storm damage is an "act of god" for which no person is liable. If you suffer damage as a result of a storm, you bear that loss. If the risk of that loss worries you, you take out insurance.

So, my neighbour's tree blows down in a storm, lands on my shed and takes it out? My problem. I claim on my own insurance. If I haven't got insurance, tough. I'll know better next time.

But.

It may be that damage occurring during a storm isn't always just an act of god. If the tree was rotten, diseased, in need of care, hadn't been properly managed, and wouldn't have fallen down in the storm if it had been properly looked after, then I claim against my neighbour. This isn't an act of god, I say; this is the consequence of his negligence as a landowner.

And, if I haven't got my own insurance to claim on, I'm likely at least to have a go against my neighbour. Why wouldn't I? What have I go to lose?

So, if my neighour owns a tree, and is concerned that someone might claim against him should the tree blow down, what can he do to manage that risk? Look after the tree, obviously, but if he is already doing that and is still worried then, once again, the answer is "insure". As well as insuring his own property against acts of god (like I should have done, but didn't) he can also insure himself against any liability he may incur as a property owner. So, if the tree falls to the south and takes out his own house, he's covered; if it falls to the north and takes out his neighbour's house and he's liable because he failed to maintain the tree properly he's still covered. Standard house insurance usually covers both of these risks.

So, in this case, for the farmer to succeed in a claim, he'll have to show that the tree only fell because it wasn't properly maintained, and wouldn't have fallen if it had been. And, if the farmer does succeed in showing that, then the OP's friend's insurer should cover him.

Because the insurers are on the hook if the farmer succeeds, they will manage the defence of the claim. They might argue "act of god" against the farmer, saying "No, this tree was properly looked after and perfectly sound. It only fell down because of the unprecedented ferocity of the storm. That's an act of god, and nobody is liable to you for that." But if the farmer wins his case then the insurer won't refuse to pay up by saying that it was an act of god; the farmer winning his case means that it has been established that it wasn't an act of god.

Eggs For Dinner · 12-02-2025 08:51AM

I would totally agree with Peregrinus. If you had no reason to suspect the tree was a hazard and was subsequently found to be perfectly healthy, then you have no liabillity. As for being morally or ethically responsibile, that's between you and your conscience and nothing to do with your liability to the farmer. Your insurer will see it that way too and vigourously defend the claim (providing you are correct about the prior condition of the tree). Regardless of the outcome, insurers will bear the cost of any action, up to the limit stated in the policy, usually no less than 1m. Your friend has nothing to worry about, even if it goes against him

ArcadiaJunction · 12-02-2025 11:07AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123161553#Comment_123161553

Thanks it is unfortunate as the guy is on the autism spectrum and thinks the worst in a literal sense.

Storm Damage Liability?

Comments