"Warren" wrote in message
news:eQbXc.311406$a24.59732@attbi_s03...
Murph wrote:

"Vox Humana" wrote

I don't see how the victim's insurance is relevant to the value of
the
tree.

Your statement is exactly why every homeowner needs to keep their
policies
updated.

Most homeowners basic policies cover $2k in jewelry, should you have a
fire
or anyother loss which is by nature or by a person. You cannot
attempt to
claim $10k in jewelry loss, unless you have an additional rider.

snip

The insurance is the auto insurance of the guy who hit the tree. What
his homeowner's insurance would cover is irrelevant.

If I were the OP, I would talk to my agent first before running to an
attorney. The agent has already been paid to answer questions. The
attorney
will answer questions for a fee, and unfortunately some are eager to
go to
court be it a win or lose situation. It would be unfortunate for the
OP to
have a couple thousand dollars in legal fees, with the end result
being
rewarded with $500 as intially offered by the insurance company. The
OP is
already mounting fees from a horticulturalist, unless this was a
freebee.

If you're talking about him going to his home owner's insurance, it's a
very bad idea to talk to him/her. If he files a claim, or even alerts
his homeowner's insurance company that there has been significant damage
to the tree, an entry will be made into the CLUE record for his house.
Not only does he run the risk of being canceled at the next renewal (or
seeing a big rise in his premium), any other insurance company he would
go to for coverage will use CLUE and see his problem.


http://www.oregonlive.com/business/o...7937947660.xml

Talking to his homeowner's insurance agent about this problem will
likely cost him quite a bit in the long run.

On the other hand, no attorney is going to want to go to court over
damage to a single tree. That includes the insurance company's legal
department as well. But for under $100 he can get an attorney to write a
letter to the auto insurance company reminding them that they have an
obligation to pay costs, and that the certified arborist is a far more
qualified person to determine the tree's damage, and is far more
qualified to know what it costs to correct the damage, and make the
homeowner whole. That will usually be enough to shake out a good
settlement in an automobile accident with less than $10,000 damage to
another party's property, which is almost certainly below the liability
limits of the driver's policy.

Again: Do NOT get the homeowner's insurance involved.

This is a fairly simple issue in the auto insurance world. All that's
left is to negotiate the settlement. Put it in the homeowner's insurance
world, and CLUE will haunt the OP for a long, long time, and cost him
far more in the long run than if he footed the bill out of his own
pocket.

--
Warren H.

You're wrong. Agents are there to answer all questions. They do not file
claims when you ask them a question. They will guide you the best route to
take. Agents know their prospective regulatory laws of their State.

I would like to know, how you know if it's relevant in the OP's State? I
know for a fact it's relevant in the State of Ohio, all States vary as I
mentioned before. It may or may not be relevant depending on the OP's laws
and precedents in the State they reside.

Negotiating a settlement without having knowledge in the field, is very poor
advice.