Your Tree Falls on a Neighbor's Shed

[Art]

Sorry but owner of the wood would depend on what state you are in. There is no federal tree falling statute which overrides state laws..... yet.

[Art]

Build a tree house.

[John Willis]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:52:23 -0400, Trent© scribbled this interesting note:

Around here when the tree crosses the property line the neighbor can quite correctly cut it back to the property line and the tree owner has no say in the matter...

-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

[Chuck Reti]

Last year a huge ash tree split in a storm and most of it hit my house, causing significant damage. My insurance agent and the adjuster both said, essentially, once it crossed over the fence, it became my tree, not the neighbor's, and my insurance coverage deals with it, not his (though he sustained some property damage as well, covered by his carrier).

[Trent©]

Sorry...yer wrong.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Trent©]

That's not the same scenario. And the owner ALWAYS has a say. He can go to court and get a restraining order...and then let the court decide. This recently happened in my area...where the local electric utility was temporarily restrained from trimming trees they owned...due to local residents' objections. They were also restrained from trimming any trees/branches that had grown onto their vertical right-of-way.

And if trimming the tree causes damages later...by disrupting the balance of the tree or by causing physical (health) damage to the tree, the trimming neighbor can be held liable.

In my locale, you are not allowed to cut the roots of any tree where the roots are more than 2" in diameter...without a permit from the city...which includes inspection.

Again...if the property of neighbor A is involuntarily transported onto the property of neighbor B, neighbor A doesn't automatically lose ownership of that property. He has the right to reclaim that property.

Picture a tornado that gently picks up a large camper and sets it in a neighbor's yard. I've seen this happen. The scenario with the tree is no different.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[SteveB]

There are so many variables .............

Were there any witnesses?

If there were no witnesses, and no one heard or saw the tree fall, how could one prove that the incident occurred?

Does a tree make any noise when it falls on a shed and no one is listening?

Was there any provocation from the shed?

Were there any mitigating circumstances such as Dutch Elm Disease or the like?

Did the shed take any evasive action?

Could the collapse of the tree be attributed to social conditions, environmental contamination, or the lack of nurturing the tree received at the nursery?

There are so many issues that would have to be addressed before one even got to the issue of liability.

HTH

Steve

[Michael Daly]

This may be true where you live, but if a truck tire comes off around here, the truck owner is liable, period. Ditto if a tree falls on another property - the owner has to make reparations.

Usenet covers a lot of the world - US laws aren't universal and shouldn't be stated as definitive.

Mike

[HeatMan]

My wife, an insuance agent in our state sez you are wrong.

If the tree falls on it's own (not dead) and lands on the neighbors anything, the part that is on their side of the property line is theirs, including the damage. It is then their problem to get the mess cleaned up and the damages are their responsibility.

That doesn't mean they can't sue you, though.

[Jeff Cochran]

Most statutes are based on common law. Virtually all rulings are based on case law. Case law often takes into account local custom in civil cases. And he's right, tree damage varies not only by state, but by jurisdiction. Besides, the OP never tells us *how* or *why* the tree fell. Could be it was undermined by local utility work, meaning neither neighbor may be at fault.

And it's still an insurance company call...

Jeff

[Jeff Cochran]

Actually, Federal laws governing natural resources could apply. Doubtful any fool would try, but technically claims could be made under Federal logging statutes. Which in certain areas may mean that no wood could be harvested. :)

Jeff

[Trent©]

Yer wife is wrong. You don't get ownership just because of an involuntary transfer of location.

If the wind blows over my black walnut tree worth thousands of dollars, it doesn't become the property of the neighbor...and give him a monetary windfall (sorry! lol) just because of an act of God (nature).

People who are involved in tornados don't loose ownership just because their property is now scattered down the street.

Respectfully...yer wife is wrong.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Art]

Doubtful. I guarantee the federal statute has a mindboggling definition of a forest and his house is not likely to be in one. Now if we were talking about damage to wetlands it would be a different story.

[Trent©]

Actually, at this point (according to the OP's query) we're simply talking about contractual law. The owner of the tree entered into a contract with his insurance company...to cover any damages he may cause to incur to someone else's property. Normally, there is a codicil excluding any act of God. So, we're assuming that the insurance company (normally) will not pay for the damages to the neighbor.

Common law will come into play if they ever get into court because of a lawsuit.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Trent©]

Sorry...not true.

We'd need to talk in specifics, of course. But, for example...

If the claim goes to court and if the claimant brings up the fact that the defendant didn't have the tree inspected every year by a qualified tree expert, that may indeed make the defendant negligent in failing to determine annually the health of the tree.

However, since that kind of inspection isn't normally done by the general public, that omission wouldn't be an act of GROSS negligence.

One can think of many other such examples.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Betsy]

Here in Maryland there is no liability to the neighbor if it is your tree. There insurance is designed to cover it. I'd suggest you call your agent and find out if that is the case. Then, if you think your neighbor will never talk to you again if you don't help, offer minimal assistance. But beware of setting a precedent!

[ronm]

I would hope that helping your neighbour isn't a precedent at all.

[cassini]

Hi Dave,

I was a homeowners' isurance adjuster in New Mexico for about 8 years. Here's my advice:

If the damage is to the extent and expense that you can't handle it "between friendly neighbors," then its best to call your insurance agent.

The claim representative will investigate and determine if your HO policy's liability coverages will can pay for the damage to the shed.

If it was, say, a healthy tree by all indications, and it fell over unexpectedly or in a wind or other natural event, then it would appear that you are not negligent and your liability coverage would owe nothing to your neighbor.

The neighbor would have to file a claim under his own insurance policy, and he would be responsible for his deductible.

If you neighbor sued you for the damage to his shed, then your liability coverage would pay for your defense in court and costs (up to your liablity policy's limit) to dispose of the lawsuit.

That's why it's important to consider reporting the loss to your agent, because if you are sued a long time down the road, the insurance company could possibly deny coverage because you didn't report the loss in a reasonably timely manner--or, if so much time has passed that you and your neighbor forget the exact day it happened, then there is a risk that the date of loss you report could fall on a day that you happened not to have coverage (say if your policy lapsed temporarily because of a payment snafu; or wasn't in effect at the time). Weird things like that happen.

Now, if the tree was old and rotten, for example, and you had knowledge it could possibly be a hazard to your neighbor's property, and you never got around to doing anything about it, then you'd likely be liable for the damage and your liablity coverage would pay for it.

If your liability coverage paid for the damage, there would be no deductible that you or your neighbor would be responsible for.

A loss like this typically wouldn't raise your premiums?-unless, while the claim rep or agent is inspecting the loss, they find you've made improvements to the property (example: new garage, add on to the house, etc. and claim rep realizes you are obviously underinsured).

Also, a loss like this won't typically result in cancellation of your policy--unless during the inspection the claim rep or agent finds your home is a poor insurable risk: if it is , say, neglected, in poor condition (a rotten roof; a liablity hazard like an open, swimming pool half-filled with green moldy water).

Having said all this, HO policies often have an additional coverage under the liablity portion of the contract: It is called Damage to Property of Others, and it is payable even if there was no liablity on your part. It is typically very limited, to $500, usually.

There's a couple of reasons for this coverage: to make small claims against you "go away," even though you are not liable (to avoid the expense of lawsuits). And in a sense, it's kind of there if you feel "morally obligated" for a loss, even though you are not legally obligated to pay (the tree hitting a neighbors shed is a classic case of this). The claim rep can pay your neighbor under this coverage, and it can pay or go toward paying your neighbor's deductible, for example.

And that keeps you and your neighbor on friendly terms, hopefully :-)

And finally: To me, it sounds strange that there would be states that say if the tree is yours, you are automatically liable. Think what a legal nightmare that would be in a major wind event--your trees flying around and hitting a half dozen neighbor's houses. Would it be fair for your insurance policy to pay all your neighbors' damage? Just a thought.

[Betsy]

What I meant was: in terms of insurance things can get tricky. If your neighbor comes to you and gets angry because their insurance has to cover your tree, as the law states here, then I'd be mighty careful the extent to which I'd go to help out. A goodwill gesture may be appropriate. But a neighbor like that would manipulate you thereafter in a myriad of ways if you weren't careful.

[Anon]

Best post I've read in a while! Thanks.