"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.

Should you add a shed, you need to update your policy.

ANY improvements, be it landscape or structural, you need to update your
policy. Specialty landscapes need a rider, ask your agent.

Insurance is not meant to be a windfall in instances like the OP (which is
how insurance companies look at this). The relevancy of value would come
out in court, if the OP had a rider for a specialty item. If they didn't
feel it was valuable enough for an additional premium, this is one of the
first fact findings arguements in insurance. Rest assured, precedents have
already been set for instances like this.

Policies for actual cash replacement, do not include trees. You can ask
your agent and let them explain to you.

I don't intend to prove a point, give your friendly agent a call and
inquire. Most agents are more than willing to talk about an instance like
the OP's.

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.

I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability
policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy
*should* be irrelevant.

I mentioned the homeowner's policy eariler because it would (I think)
cover whatever was not paid by the other guy's auto policy. The
homeowner's insurance company would have an interest in you collecting
from that other policy so they wouldn't have to pay anything.

I still don't think I explained that very well...

Bob


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.

Should you add a shed, you need to update your policy.

ANY improvements, be it landscape or structural, you need to update your
policy. Specialty landscapes need a rider, ask your agent.

Insurance is not meant to be a windfall in instances like the OP (which is
how insurance companies look at this). The relevancy of value would come
out in court, if the OP had a rider for a specialty item. If they didn't
feel it was valuable enough for an additional premium, this is one of the
first fact findings arguements in insurance. Rest assured, precedents have
already been set for instances like this.

Policies for actual cash replacement, do not include trees. You can ask
your agent and let them explain to you.

I don't intend to prove a point, give your friendly agent a call and
inquire. Most agents are more than willing to talk about an instance like
the OP's.

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.

"zxcvbob" wrote
I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability
policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy
*should* be irrelevant.

I mentioned the homeowner's policy eariler because it would (I think)
cover whatever was not paid by the other guy's auto policy. The
homeowner's insurance company would have an interest in you collecting
from that other policy so they wouldn't have to pay anything.

I still don't think I explained that very well...

Bob

This is why I encourage the OP to contact their agent. Each State in the
U.S.A varies, I do know for a fact that in the State of Ohio, this would be
relevant in an instance like the OP's.

It doesn't matter what, you think, Vox thinks, or I think. I'm going by my
experience in the State of Ohio. Our insurance and precedents mean
absolutely ziltch when comparing to another State.

I repeat, the OP's agent would be the best one to contact at this time.

"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.

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).

Does you local municipality or county have an arborist? Is there
an agricultural extension? Can you pay to have them appraise the
tree? I contacted a friend with our local park agency to appraise
the value of two trees, based on how the agency values its own
trees in this situation. Otherwise, get another arborist, one that
is both licensed (if they are licensed in your area) and a member
of a national professional society. (Add the cost to your claim.)

When the claim is settled and the old tree is removed, replace it
with a much younger tree (5 or 10 gallon can). In a few years, it
will be thriving and growing much more vigorously than a specimen
tree the size of your old tree. And you will have some money left
over from the settlement.

--

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/.

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
I think Vox's point was that the SUV driver's automobile liability
policy would pay, not the homeowner's policy. The homeowner's policy
*should* be irrelevant.


Yes. That's exactly what I meant. Let's say the homeowner fell on hard
times, or was very wealthy and didn't have insurance. Would everything he
owned be considered worthless because it wasn't insured? I don't think so.

After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back
and
said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be
replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an
adjuster
to look at the tree and it looks just fine."

Insurance companies (or their CEOs) don't get rich by writing out checks.
Make no mistake about it, their business is making money, not taking care of
you. In dealing with insurance companies, I've never been able to get
anywhere near reasonable restitution without a battle. A regular adjuster
will not EVER be able to do it for you, you're going to have to go farther
up the food chain.

And, unfortunately, in the case of a tree (instead of a car), you're
probably going to have to file a lawsuit. If your locality allows that
large of damages in small claims court, and you feel sufficiently prepared
to go up against the insurance company, you can do it very cheaply. But
make no mistake about it, though, it's going to be a battle.

steve

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.

I've had to deal with insurance companies of idiots who have caused me
harm and damage various times. Not in any case did the insurance company
want to even come close to an honest restitution of the damages. I didn't
ask for anything other than to be restored to what I had before their
insured party caused the damages. (I don't think that's at all unfair) In
every case, I had to fight a long, hard battle just to get that - but
luckily, so far, I've been able to eventually drag it out of them.

If I were the person who caused the accident, I'd probably feel
differently. But as an innocent victim, I have a hard time accepting the
fact that I should just bend over and take a loss just because some
insurance company feels like pocketing a little more money that quarter.

steve

I am not going to reprint reams of past post

I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the
tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in its
place.
Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not
having the mature tree to look at).

I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell of
it ever being a good tree.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is Commerce your company, or the driver's?

Commerce is the driver's insurance company.

-al

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
I am not going to reprint reams of past post

I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the
tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in
its
place.
Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not
having the mature tree to look at).

I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell
of
it ever being a good tree.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure, then
would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give me
the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for
$500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced at
all.

I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their
qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and
the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court.

-al sung

"Vox Humana" wrote:


"Murph" wrote in message
...

"Alan Sung" wrote
This past winter a large SUV crashed into a Norway Maple in front of my
house out near the road. The tree has a 7" caliper, 21" circumference
and
is
about 35-40 feet high. A chunk of the bark about 18" high and about 1/3
of
the circumference was knocked off down to the bare wood.

The driver was very cordial and said that their insurance would pay for
the
damage. I had a certified horticulturalist from Weston Nurseries come
and
look at the tree and write a letter giving an estimate. It says "This
tree
will continue to live for several more years, however, with each year
this
tree will leaf out less and less, resulting in rotting branches and
internal
rot of the exposed hard wood due to the extensive cambium layer scar. No
remedial action can save this tree."

The numbers we
Tree: $5,000
Delivery w/crane truck: $275
Tree and stump removal: $600
Installation w/3 laborers and compost soil: $600

After sending this information off to Commerce Insurance, they came back
and
said "We'll give you $500 because we do not think the tree needs to be
replaced and that's all that the damaged bark is worth. We sent an
adjuster
to look at the tree and it looks just fine."

I am looking to get a second opinion from another certified
horticulturalist
who is familiar with tree values and associated costs. Does anyone have
any
recommendations or the best way to proceed?

Thanks,
-al sung
Hopkinton, MA

The insurance company is banking that you did not have the tree insured
for
more. Your homeowners policy _probably_ would only pay $500 for removal
etc
if it got hit by lightning. $500 is the normal for storm damage, be it 1
tree or 20, most policies have a $500 cap per incident (not per tree). You
should be able to verify this through your policy or a quick call to your
agent. Now if you updated your insurance, and can prove you had it
insured
for over 6k, then it's a different story.


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


.................... please people, can you top post so I dont have to scroll down
thru all the previous person's message to find the message???? It just makes more
sense if messages arent trimmed. Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"Alan Sung" wrote in message
news:%lmXc.64311$Fg5.15302@attbi_s53...
"David Hill" wrote in message
...
I am not going to reprint reams of past post

I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have
the
tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in
its
place.
Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity
(not
having the mature tree to look at).

I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in
hell
of
it ever being a good tree.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure,
then
would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give
me
the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for
$500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced
at
all.

I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their
qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and
the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court.

-al sung



Call your town/city hall and find out if you can do this yourself. In other
words, the judge who handles small claims might be able to provide a
subpoena without your having to hire a lawyer. This could end up being
cheap.

Alan Sung wrote:
"David Hill" wrote in message
...

I am not going to reprint reams of past post

I would ask the company if they would be willing to undertake to have the
tree removed, the ground made up and a new tree; of say 15ft; planted in

its

place.
Then in addition you claim a figure of say $1000 for loss of amenity (not
having the mature tree to look at).

I would not want to try to replace with like for like, not a hope in hell

of

it ever being a good tree.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk


I asked Commerce that if they had an adjuster give them a $500 figure, then
would they be willing to come out and replace the tree or could they give me
the name of the landscape company/nursery who would perform this work for
$500. They said NO because they do not think the tree should be replaced at
all.

I then asked them who made the assessment of the damage and what their
qualifications were. They said they could not divulge that information and
the damage assessment report could only be obtained by subpoena in court.

-al sung


They are daring you to sue them.

It's time to contact the state attorney general's office, and the state
board of insurance examiners.

Bob

wrote:

..... please people, can you top post so I dont have to scroll down
thru all the previous person's message to find the message???? It just makes
more sense if messages arent trimmed.

No. But if the message is trimmed, it makes more sense to leave the
part a person is responding to at the beginning so they don't have to
repeat what they are responding to.

It makes most sense to trim and then post he reply after each section of
the trimming.

such as:

trimming 1

response 1

trimming 2

response 2

trimming 3

response 3.

etc.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to