Tree Removal

[mangoldm]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

We had a 140-foot tulip poplar tree topple over yesterday, headed straight for our house. It was stopped by a similarly-sized beech tree, which could give way at any time.

We're waiting for a crane to be available to remove the poplar. Estimated cost: $7,000. The insurance company says they won't pay for the tree removal. They will, however, pay to repair the house if the tree hits. We've been told by the fire company and the tree service that the house will likely be totaled if the trees let loose.

This seems pretty stupid to me -- is this standard insurance practice? Would we be well-advised to seek legal help to get the insurance company to chip in? Are legal fees worth it when only $7,000 is at stake?

 

[Country Living]

Read your homeowner's policy

This is standard practice. Your policy **may** provide a very small amount (e.g. $400) for tree removal. Pull out your homeowner's policy and look for this section.

Yes, it seems ridiculous; but, that's the way it is.

 

[Betty]

Yep - country living is right - homeowner policies pay nothing (possibly a very small amt.) for tree removal. They would only pay if the tree fell on an "object" (ie your house) - they would pay for damage to the "object" - house.
Bummer, huh!

 

[xylene]

It only seems ridiculous until you think about it though.

For a hypothetical example, my mechanic just told me my car's brakes were about to faill, an that would cost a small fortune to fix...

So why shouldn't I put in an insurance claim, since my car would surely be totaled without brakes...

BTW I would never drive without brakes. It is just an illustration of how and why your insurance isn't ripping you off.

 

[Country Living]

Expectations

It only seems ridiculous until you think about it though.

For a hypothetical example, my mechanic just told me my car's brakes were about to faill, an that would cost a small fortune to fix...

So why shouldn't I put in an insurance claim, since my car would surely be totaled without brakes...

BTW I would never drive without brakes. It is just an illustration of how and why your insurance isn't ripping you off.

I hope you realize you gave a very bad example. You are expected to maintain your property. In case of your car, had you known the brakes were defective and chose to drive anyway, then your insurance company would find you culpable in the loss.

Yes, the tree situation is unfortunate. But, look at it from the company's point of view. Many people have trees on their property that need to be removed. They wait too late and the tree falls. Sure, it's more expensive to maintain your property and remove these trees before they fall and cause damage; but, to make the responsibility rest on the shoulders of the insurance company is unreasonable.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether this was a healthy tree, the neighbors watered too much and the soil gave way - there are a dozen reasons why a tree falls. Now that it's down it's the OPs responsibility to remove it.

Betty is right. The OP is responsible for tree removal regardless of whether or not it caused any damage on the way down. He's lucky he didn't have structural damage (which would have a deductible) in addition to the cost to remove the tree.

 

[xylene]

I hope you realize you gave a very bad example. You are expected to maintain your property. In case of your car, had you known the brakes were defective and chose to drive anyway, then your insurance company would find you culpable in the loss.

My example is rough, but it correctly makes the point coverage against loss is not coverage for maintainance of repair to prevent loss.

Do you think it would be a good time for the OP to build an addition in the path of this teetering tree? If you think that, then I could see how my example is without merit.

 

[Country Living]

My example is rough, but it correctly makes the point coverage against loss is not coverage for maintainance of repair to prevent loss.

If you're saying insurance does not cover maintenance - right.

Do you think it would be a good time for the OP to build an addition in the path of this teetering tree? If you think that, then I could see how my example is without merit.

Surely, you're jesting.

 

[xylene]

Surely, you're jesting.

Don't call me Shirley.

 

[Country Living]

Don't call me Shirley.

 

[Betty]

=Surely, you're jesting.

=Don't call me Shirley.

xylene (aka Shirley), I don't believe Country Living was calling you Shirley -- they were saying Shirley, you're Justine. )