My tree damaged my neighbor's house

I'm kinda late to the party, but a friend of mine had a neighbor with a tree that dropped limbs on his garage several times. He was responsible each time. He eventually ended up paying to have the tree removed. 

posted by Verbal Kint

Pass the buck to your insurance carrier, they can send an "act of god" letter to them if they press

In an effort to be neighborly, I'm going to help him get the trunk piece to the curb, and I'll take care of getting it hauled away.  I feel bad for them.

Just in case, I'll pass this on. He is a nationally recognized expert in tree law. Used him in a dispute with a neighbor over some tree damage on our Columbus property.

https://radio.wosu.org/post/columbus-attorney-nationally-recognized-his-tree-law-expertise#stream/0

Last year half a neighbor's tree fell into my fence during a storm. My insurance company said it was my problem because the tree was healthy and it was an act of God. The right thing for the neighbor to do would have been to pay my deductible, but that did not happen. They did take down the rest of the tree thankfully.

posted by Fred Garvin

The right thing for the neighbor to do would have been to pay my deductible, but that did not happen.

I'm curious why you think this.

posted by O-Trap

I'm curious why you think this.

It wasn't his tree who fell on his house, it was your tree. 

posted by kizer permanente

It wasn't his tree who fell on his house, it was your tree. 

I didn't make it fall.  I haven't neglected the tree.  The storm caused the tree to fall and is to blame for the damage.

If a storm were strong enough to pick up a car from down the block and send it through your living room wall, would the car owner down the block be responsible?

posted by O-Trap

I didn't make it fall.  I haven't neglected the tree.  The storm caused the tree to fall and is to blame for the damage.

If a storm were strong enough to pick up a car from down the block and send it through your living room wall, would the car owner down the block be responsible?

No I get it.  

But they didn’t make it fall either. And they didn’t neglect the tree either.  Yet they’re paying for your tree still. Not theirs. 

posted by kizer permanente

No I get it.  

But they didn’t make it fall either. And they didn’t neglect the tree either.  Yet they’re paying for your tree still. Not theirs. 

Sure, which is why we get homeowners insurance.

Replace "storm" with "vandal."  Vandal rips/cuts off a branch from my tree and beats the shit out of my neighbor's porch.  The responsible party in that scenario is, of course, the vandal.  Neither my neighbor nor I am responsible for the damages.

Unfortunately, storms can't be held liable for damages in court, so we get insurance to cover that kind of damage.

Or ... you know ... we don't, apparently.

(* I know you get it.  I'm more teasing it out for the comment above yours)

posted by O-Trap

Sure, which is why we get homeowners insurance.

Replace "storm" with "vandal."  Vandal rips/cuts off a branch from my tree and beats the shit out of my neighbor's porch.  The responsible party in that scenario is, of course, the vandal.  Neither my neighbor nor I am responsible for the damages.

Unfortunately, storms can't be held liable for damages in court, so we get insurance to cover that kind of damage.

Or ... you know ... we don't, apparently.

(* I know you get it.  I'm more teasing it out for the comment above yours)

I know. That’s just the kind of person I am though. I typically blame myself for shit that isn’t ultimately my fault lol. I’m the worst at giving people bad news. 

Two things:  they have saved say, $1,500 per year for say, 10 years, by not purchasing insurance.  So they have banked $15,000, or some other significant sum, by not paying for homeowners insurance all these years.  Thus, they should pull from such savings for the repair.  Second, if they own the house outright, they can easily obtain a home equity loan to take care of the repairs.  Thus, given two potential sources of funds to pull from, it is not as though they should be considered destitute and incapable of paying for the repairs.  Still, I understand it is somewhat of an uncomfortable situation. 

posted by QuakerOats

Two things:  they have saved say, $1,500 per year for say, 10 years, by not purchasing insurance.  So they have banked $15,000, or some other significant sum, by not paying for homeowners insurance all these years.  Thus, they should pull from such savings for the repair.  Second, if they own the house outright, they can easily obtain a home equity loan to take care of the repairs.  Thus, given two potential sources of funds to pull from, it is not as though they should be considered destitute and incapable of paying for the repairs.  Still, I understand it is somewhat of an uncomfortable situation. 

1. They've definitely not been banking that money.  Most people around here don't.  A good chunk of them don't even have bank accounts.

2. They already owe a bunch of property back taxes (~ $10K), so I don't know how that affects the ability to get a second mortgage, but while their house isn't worth a lot (most houses on my block are worth anywhere from $15K to $40K), I would think it would still be enough to fix the house, though.

We're dealing with people who have a history of poor decision-making, as I said.  I still feel bad for them, though, as the tree falling wasn't their fault.

posted by kizer permanente

No I get it.  

But they didn’t make it fall either. And they didn’t neglect the tree either.  Yet they’re paying for your tree still. Not theirs. 

No, they're paying for an act of God (or nature if your prefer) that has absolutely nothing to do with who owns the tree.

posted by queencitybuckeye

No, they're paying for an act of God (or nature if your prefer) that has absolutely nothing to do with who owns the tree.

I get the legality of it. I'm just saying something bad happened.... And though no fault of anyone's it's worsened for the payee since they have no way of mitigating this circumstance. The tree isn't theirs. They have no right to this tree. Yet this tree can/did cause damage to their property. And even if they wanted this tree taken down so they don't have to pay for the damage again, there's nothing they can do. Just ask you to use lube next time I guess.

posted by kizer permanente

I get the legality of it. I'm just saying something bad happened.... And though no fault of anyone's it's worsened for the payee since they have no way of mitigating this circumstance. The tree isn't theirs. They have no right to this tree. Yet this tree can/did cause damage to their property. And even if they wanted this tree taken down so they don't have to pay for the damage again, there's nothing they can do. Just ask you to use lube next time I guess.

There WAS something they could have done, and opted not to do so.

posted by kizer permanente

I get the legality of it. I'm just saying something bad happened.... And though no fault of anyone's it's worsened for the payee since they have no way of mitigating this circumstance. The tree isn't theirs. They have no right to this tree. Yet this tree can/did cause damage to their property. And even if they wanted this tree taken down so they don't have to pay for the damage again, there's nothing they can do. Just ask you to use lube next time I guess.

Dude...this is what insurance is for. This isn’t a discussion. They are morons and will have to pay for being cheap/dumb. It’s why a mortgage company won’t give you a loan without it. It’s why it’s against the law to drive without auto insurance. Accidents happen, it’s why we protect ourselves with insurance.

posted by Laley23

Dude...this is what insurance is for. This isn’t a discussion. They are morons and will have to pay for being cheap/dumb. It’s why a mortgage company won’t give you a loan without it. It’s why it’s against the law to drive without auto insurance. Accidents happen, it’s why we protect ourselves with insurance.

I would be more sympathetic if they legitimately had no means of affording it, but (a) they have plenty of equity, and (b) I've seen examples of how much beer and weed they buy in a given month, and there's about a -2% chance that it wouldn't cover the cost of insurance instead.

posted by O-Trap

I would be more sympathetic if they legitimately had no means of affording it, but (a) they have plenty of equity, and (b) I've seen examples of how much beer and weed they buy in a given month, and there's about a -2% chance that it wouldn't cover the cost of insurance instead.

You’re nicer than I am. Because if you can own a house, you can afford insurance. Otherwise...rent.

posted by O-Trap

I would be more sympathetic if they legitimately had no means of affording it, but (a) they have plenty of equity, and (b) I've seen examples of how much beer and weed they buy in a given month, and there's about a -2% chance that it wouldn't cover the cost of insurance instead.

How much is your insurance? Theirs couldn't be much more than $600 a year can it? Basically nothing for the peace of mind.

posted by iclfan2

How much is your insurance? Theirs couldn't be much more than $600 a year can it? Basically nothing for the peace of mind.

Mine's probably not even that, though I have good insurance.

Like I said, I would be more sympathetic if it weren't for those things I mentioned.  They have equity in the house, so I know they have the ability to borrow against it.  And they probably go through at least $150 a month in beer alone.

I know a lot of that is "normal" around here, so I get that they're just pretty much doing what they've seen everyone else do, but there's no way they didn't know about it, so there's ultimately no excuse.

I helped them clean up a bunch of the smaller debris in their yard yesterday, but the log was too big for even the husband and I to move, so we've got to figure something else out.  Well, they do, but I'm willing to help if I can.