Here in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation by far, the tree owner is in the clear. I think it's common law that unless you knowingly allowed the tree to deteriorate in some way, the tree falling is considered an act of god. Hanover insurance believes this to the tune of $4,000 in the case of my garage.
Nice example of do what I say, not what I do. Tells us usenet covers a lot of the world, then doesn't tell us where his example is located.
Good example of how to get yourself into legal trouble without knowing what you are doing. In most cases, if a tree falls as in this case, the guy has no legal liability, because it's considered an act of nature or act of god. But, going over and talking to someone and saying something stupid before talking to your insurance company or lawyer os that you know the rules, can change that.
Your logic is backwards. The neighbor doesn't care whether you have insurance or not. The issue is who is liable under the law applied to these facts in the jurisdiction. If you are not liable under the law the insurance company will not pay so there is no point in calling the insurance company. The question of liability depends on the jursidiction and the condition of the tree and other factors we don't know about.
Since most people don't get yearly inspections of their trees, failure to do so would hardly be negligent unless you had reason to know there was a problem with the tree.
Good post and I would add that in NC if your insurance company makes a business decision to pay a claim that you don't feel they should pay and your rates will go up as a result, you are screwed. Once they offer to pay they are off the hook even though you don't think they should and longterm it might cost you money due to a rate increase. On the otherhand if they refuse to settle a suit that is under your coverage and in court you lose the liability suit and it is above the coverage limits, they may have to pay the extra amount for refusing to settle the case.
Does it matter? My point is just because such-and-such law says "this" in your area, doesn't mean it applies to the OP. The OP has to find out what applies in his area. Stating that "this" is the definitive answer is nonsense. Stating what the law is in any area other than the OP's is a waste of electrons.
Mike
No, she's not wrong.
But wait....
Actually it becomes the property of your neighbor. 99% of the people out there would let you take the remains of the tree, reagrdless of what kind of wood it is.
Keep going.
Trees are not personal property, like the contents of your house. I have never seen a person dig up a tree and move it to thier new house, but I see people moving personal property all the time.
Nope, you are.
End of discussion. I know you are the type of smug idiot that thinks s/he is always correct. I know the laws of my state by default (helping my wife study for the agents license). If I was going to continue this discussion, my next question to you would be what state do you live in and what do you do for a living. It sure ain't insurance.
I will no longer participate in this discussion.
Amen.
I had a 40 year old hickory that started dying. My neighbor told me he had been worried after I had it cut down. The tree would have done a bunch of damage to his house (and cars) if it had fallen in the direction it was leaning.
Of course that would have been an interesting case too if it fell. Suppose you had never noticed it but he had and never complained to you.... that is why we have a court system.
Trees are an interesting case. Suppose someone accidentally chops down a bunch of trees in your yard causing a devaluation of your home. In some US states you could sue for the depreciation caused by the loss of the trees. In other states you can only sue for the lumber value.
discussion,
Exactly.
Have a nice week...
Trent©
What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.
No its not. Common law doesn't come into play unless you wind up in court. You don't need any basis in law to bring suit against someone. The validity of the suit (common law, statute, etc.) is determined AFTER you get to court.
That's how common law is BORN...winning a suit which has no basis in law at the onset.
Exactly. The damages would be paid for by HIS insurance company. In the event he doesn't have any coverage, he might sue you...which is where lawful precedent would come into play...if there is any.
The insurance company of the guy who got hit is the one who is liable. If the insured elects not to enforce the terms of his contract, that's his prerogative.
Insurance companies OFTEN pay when they are not liable. You even state that fact in one of your other posts. Insurance companies OFTEN choose the least expensive venue...not the venue of who is liable.
Actually, if the guy who got hit has insurance...and decides not to tell his insurance company...I don't think that he CAN sue. I'm not an attorney...but I think by contract he has subrogated his rights to the insurance company. I think the only rights he MIGHT have at this point is for his deductible. Any damages are leveled to his insurance company...not to him. His limit of liability (his out of pocket money) would only be for the amount he would be forced to pay. And he would not be forced to pay for the damages...per his contract with the insurance company. He would only be liable for the deductible.
If he has no deductible...and he has insurance coverage...he would not be able to sue the neighbor.
Have a nice week...
Trent©
What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.
Then what are they? Are they real property?
Where I live, we have retailers who sell trees. You pay for a tree...you take it home. If someone steals it from you on the way home, they've committed petty theft or a felony.
Is it real property? If you plant a tree, does your real estate taxes go up?
Could very well be.
Ah...the name calling plateau. This time, I'm kinda surprised.
Have a nice week...
Trent©
What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.
That brings something else to mind. Somewhere, a while back, I remember reading the if a 'mature' tree dies in your (front?) yard, you could collect insuance money for it.
If someone came onto my property (not the right of way) and cut down a bunch of trees, depreciation would be the last thing on my mind.
Trees are definitely property and often have significant value. In most jurisdictions there is also law that covers trees near property lines. For example, where I live a neighbor may remove any limbs from a tree whose trunk is on his neighbor's property if those limbs overhang his property.
My general understanding of how "it works" related to tree damage is that if a tree falls in a significant wind storm onto a neighbor's property, the homeowner with the damage collects from his own insurance. If a tree is clearly diseased or dead/damaged and is a known threat to do damage beforehand that could be another story. If the tree owner is shown to have known about the tree's condition and did nothing about the tree, then if it falls the damaged homeowner or his insurance company may well be succesful suing for the damage. As noted though anyone can bring a suit in either situation....
You don't appear to know what "common law" is if you think that this is the way it evolves!
You are doing a fine job of defining "Case Law" -and not common law.
A piece of wood you bring home from the lumber yard is personal property until you fasten it securely to your house and then it is a fixture and in most states stays with the house when you sell it if the contract doesn't say otherwise. So yes, when you plant a tree in your yard it may no longer be personal property.
According to HeatMan :
I have seen people dig up trees and move them to a new house.
I've also seen people steal trees.
Of course they're "property".
The "which property the tree is on/ownership" bit mostly applies _before_ the tree falls down.
A cousin in Tennessee had a neighbors tree fall and damage the cousins home. I figured it was cut n dried..Neighbor at fault=Neigbors insurance, right ?
Wrong, neighbor refused to claim on his insurance or pay for damage, cousin had to take him to court.
Strangely, the judge ruled for the neighbor. It wasnt enough that the tree was obviously a hazard and fell, doing damage. Apparently to be liable, the neighbor needed to KNOW (in advance of the 'falling') that it was a hazard. I hope if I m ever sued, I get that judge.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.