Are we going to be financially liable? - Page 2

[HappyMonkey]

My parents had an obviously rotten tree fall on their house. We took photos of the trunk both in our yard and what was left in thiers to prove you could see it. That night as we slept someone came in and cleaned up all the evidence including removing the trunk that was left on their side. The neighbors said it wasn't them!! Like the insurance company would do that!

Because we had photos that proved negligence on their part it wasn't an act of nature and their policy paid.

I think if the rot was hidden you would be fine. I wouldn't offer to help pay... for the reasons stated above.

[TwinMomPlus]

omigosh!!!!

Wasn't there a hole or dirt patch in their yard that you could tell the tree came from? Thank goodness you took pics!

[HappyMonkey]

Nope just a nicely turned over garden bed....

[Kristine233]

Originally Posted by velochic

Umm... it doesn't work that way (ask me how I know ). We had straightline winds last year that tore off a bunch of shingles, then hail during the same storm that damaged the roof. When we called the insurance company, they said that the roof was already in need of replacing and they would not file a claim on it. Based on the age of the roof, they would give us nothing... not even pro-rated.

In other words, if your roof is at the end of its life, they aren't going to give you $10,000 to put a brand new roof on if it gets damaged. I doubt they would even pay anything.

Maybe it depends on the company and state laws? We clarified with our insurance agent what would happen and we were told that it wouldn't pay for the full cost (unless we took out a special policy for it) but it is pro-rated, we wouldn't get anything near replacement cost, but every bit helps. My ILs had their roof replaced in a similar manner.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X

Here you are responsible for the trees on your land to the extent that if the branches fall into the neighbors yard you are responsible for picking them up. Any damage they cause when they fall you are responsible for. So a tree falling on a neighbors house would be something you would have to pay for.

That's what I'm thinking, you broke there property through basically negligence on your part by not removing rotting trees and they fell down and wrecked the neighbors house. To me, regardless of the law you have a moral obligation to take care of any expenses incurred to fix the mess and return the neighbors home to the state it was in before.

[annettemarie]

Sorry I haven't been back-- I don't know if I mentioned that the tree also took out our phone line and internet.

First off, it was amazing how they had to get the tree out. They closed the street and had a crane lift the tree over the neighbor's house. I don't know if you'll be able to see these, but there are pictures here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref...2&id=515787621

I don't feel morally responsible for a tree I didn't know was rotten getting hit just right by 46 mph winds and falling on my neighbor's house. I feel horrible, but not morally responsible. I also feel very, very grateful that we both have homeowner's insurance and will be more than happy to let them duke it out.

[-Grace-]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I don't feel morally responsible for a tree I didn't know was rotten getting hit just right by 46 mph winds and falling on my neighbor's house. I feel horrible, but not morally responsible. I also feel very, very grateful that we both have homeowner's insurance and will be more than happy to let them duke it out.

If your car has brakes or tires you don't know are bad, and an accident happens because you couldn't brake or a tire blew, you're still responsible. Like ignorance of the law isn't a free pass, ignorance of a problem with your property doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

Even if the neighbors knew of a problem with your trees, they could do nothing about it. The trees and their care are your responsibility. Let the insurance companies duke it out, but don't be surprised if you're the one having to pay and have an increase in rates because your risk just went up because you didn't maintain the trees.

Morally you are responsible, and you probably will be legally too.

[BathrobeGoddess]

Annette,

I highly doubt you are responsible, either morally or legally. I have had the same rotting tree from my neighbor's yard fall on my house TWICE. First a limb through my bathroom roof then the rest of the tree on my entire house...on my wedding day...ruining the whole roof structurally and all...

Both times, both insurance companies said the tree was living and rot was on the inside where no one could see it (yes even the second time!) so the neighbor was not liable for the damages. Only a clearly dead or clearly rotted tree would show negligence. Basically, you can't fix what you can't see...

[annettemarie]

I'm confused as to how we didn't maintain the tree. We pruned branches, we cleaned up pine cones. Is it not maintaining the tree because we didn't have x-ray vision and know there was a problem inside? I mean, do homeowners regularly go around calling tree specialists to inspect trees on the off chance that something might be wrong with them?

I'm also confused by the word "morally". Ethically, we have insurance. Obviously if insurance on both sides refuses to pay, we'll step up and do that. But this whole idea that we did something immoral by owning a tree that couldn't stand up to 47 MPH winds and fell in the wrong direction is just kind of baffling to me. Maybe it's a matter of semantics?

[Smokering]

I'm confused by the "moral" wording too. Given they have insurance, does that make their insurance company morally responsible by proxy? I really don't see how morality enters into it - it was an accident, not caused by negligence or malice or anything more sinister than wind. I doubt annettemarie sabotaged her tree out of some twisted desire to see it kick the bucket...

[cschick]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I'm confused by the "moral" wording too. Given they have insurance, does that make their insurance company morally responsible by proxy? I really don't see how morality enters into it - it was an accident, not caused by negligence or malice or anything more sinister than wind. I doubt annettemarie sabotaged her tree out of some twisted desire to see it kick the bucket...

That's why insurance has basically acts of god/nature clauses. Even a perfectly healthy tree can go over if say, the spring is wetter than usual, the area around the tree gets wetter than usual, and you get high winds. (That's when you get the trees that go over with gigantic root balls at the bottom.)

And it's HARD to determine whether a tree is rotting from the inside out. We had a case around here recently were some couple was trying to preserve a historical house surrounded by oaks which were both on the house property and surrounding property, they paid thousands of dollars to have all the trees evaluated/x-rayed/etc to make sure they were healthy, and 8 months later . . . one of the oaks fell over over on the house.

I seriously can't see any "moral" responsibility here. And, the legal responsibility depends wholy on the laws of the state.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I'm confused by the "moral" wording too. Given they have insurance, does that make their insurance company morally responsible by proxy? I really don't see how morality enters into it - it was an accident, not caused by negligence or malice or anything more sinister than wind. I doubt annettemarie sabotaged her tree out of some twisted desire to see it kick the bucket...

Definitely not. I loved that tree. *sniff*

We talked to our insurance today. Their insurance hasn't submitted anything at this point-- I don' know what the time frame on that would be, though. Their inspector was here Friday morning. Anyway, our insurance lady said thta even if they submit a claim, we have liability coverage, which I didn't know, and which should cover everything if it can be proven we were somehow responsible. But really, you couldn't tell from the outside that anything was wrong. I feel better after talking to our insurance person though.

[chiromamma]

Originally Posted by caiesmommy

Totally off topic. But my neighbour has HUGE trees that during every wind storm I pray that they will fall and land on to our house...of course w/out us in it lol

Me too!

[-Grace-]

The moral part s that it's her property that caused the damage. If your car's emergency brake failed when your car's parked on a hill, even if you couldn't see the brakes going bad, it's still your financial responsibility. Between inspections is when things go wrong, unless against the odds something crosses the threshold from okay to not okay during the inspection. Maintenance is more than just what's visible and keeping something pretty. I don't know anyone who regularly gets trees inspected, but insurance companies often try anything they can to get out of paying. (I was in an accident once where I wasn't moving, and the guy who hit me and totaled my car by accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake. He was at fault, so my insurance wouldn't cover it. His insurance said I should have stopped far enough back from the car in front of me that I could have moved forward. The driver himself fought his insurance company on my behalf. Insurance companies just plan suck sometimes.)

What I'd suggest doing is first waiting and seeing what the insurance companies want to do. It could end up one will cover the damage and the other the deductible. If they neighbors end up with the deductible, it would be a very neighborly gesture to offer to pay it. The damage to your insurance polices is done. So what it's going to come to now is who gets the deductible.

[Smokering]

The moral part s that it's her property that caused the damage. If your car's emergency brake failed when your car's parked on a hill, even if you couldn't see the brakes going bad, it's still your financial responsibility.

Financial and moral responsibility are not the same thing. Bearing the moral responsibility implies a moral lack on the part of the doer. Annettemarie had no such lack; she didn't do anything wrong. If she is indeed financially responsible (I'm not familiar with US property law) then so be it; but that hardly connotes a moral burden.

[annettemarie]

Yeah, I definitely think we're confusing morality, ethics, and legal/financial responsibility. The first two are kind of a moot point since (a) we're in the finances forum and (b) I wasn't really asking for a discussion on the morality of trees falling. My question was about insurance and financial liability. I have insurance. They have insurance. If for some reason I am at fault (which no one official has even suggested) then I do have liability insuranace which will cover it.

Thanks for all the input.

[organicmommy]

Originally Posted by cschick

Yeah, this. My parents have a house with an older roof on it, and suffered both hail damage and some torn-off shingles during a storm last summer. They didn't get anything for that--because the insurance would only "pay" for someone to nail some new shingles up there to replace the damaged/missing ones (and that was under the cost of their deductible).

They're paying the ~15K this year to have the roof replaced (the 15K is a bit more than having the roof replaced--their gutters need to be replaced as well, and their addition needs to have some outside flashing work done as well).

I have to say that this is not always true either. We bought our house and 3 weeks later we were hit with a HUGE hail storm. The roof was in need of being replaced when we bought the house and we knew this. However due to the extent of the damage to our property and the fact that not replacing the roof would in the end cause the insurance company more money by having to pay for other damages from water leaks they did replace our roof. We got 15k for our roof and we able to put on a steel roof that is more green. So it really does depend on the insurance company that you work with.