Steve Wolfe wrote [in part]:
I previously wrote [also in part]:
Revise your claim. Your claim should include only the value of the
tree before it was damaged, the cost of TOTAL removal (including
cutting, hauling, and grinding out the stump so that a new tree can
be planted), and the costs of submitting the claim (e.g., the cost
of the arborist's estimate). Do not include the cost of a
replacement tree (see below).

That's still not at all fair to him. That's like letting someone hit your
car, total it, and letting their insurance just tow it away. They're taking
a real-world loss to their property value by losing the tree, and in order
to be made whole, the tree should be replaced - or they should be
compensated for the loss of property value. That's not trying to stick it
to the insurance company, that's just being made whole.

You failed to understand what I wrote. The claim must include the
value of the tree BEFORE the accident. That is exactly how a claim
in an automobile collision would be settled if the victim's vehicle
were totalled; he would get what the car was worth before the
accident, not what a new car would cost. In this way, the
homeowner would receive compensation for the loss of the value of
his property caused by the fatal damage to his tree.

In this case (a gardening newsgroup), my advice stands. (That's
planting advice, not insurance or legal advice.) Replace the tree
with something younger and smaller. It is likely to become better
established and thrive better than planting a specimen tree that
attempts to match the damaged tree in age and size. In the
meantime, since a 5-10 gallon tree would obviously cost less than
the old tree was worth, the homeowner would realize some cash as
compensation for the time it takes the new tree to grow.

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/.